Skip to main content

Full text of "The key of truth, a manual of the Paulician church of Armenia"

See other formats 


‘ v 

1 Vie, 

ay on ts 

hit νυ 
εὖ =) ie 


ἣν ἡ] 

Ν 

ον 

ὶ stay Char 
& te i 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation ie ἣν 


4 ___ http:/Awww.archive.org/details/keyoftruthman 


ie ν Ὁ  ΤΕΌΤΗ 


CONVBEARE 


HENRY FROWDE, M.A. 


PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 


LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK 


gM ao 


er Oi T Rut TH 


A MANUAL OF THE 


AOI ClLAN CHURCH OF ARMENIA 


orm | 7, 
ζῇς Armenian Tere 
EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH ILLUSTRATIVE 
DOCUMENTS AND INTRODUCTION 
BY 


PRED: € CONYBEARE, MA: 


FORMERLY FELLOW OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 
OXFORD 


Oxford 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 


1898 


Orford 
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 


* ; BY HORACE HART, M.A, 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 


PEE A Ce 


In the autumn of the year 1891, I went to Armenia for a second 
time, in the hope of finding an ancient version of the Book of 
Enoch, and of recovering documents illustrative of the ancient 
heretics of that land, particularly of the Paulicians. For Gibbon’s 
picture of their puritanism, fresh and vigorous in an age when 
Greek Christianity had degenerated into the court superstition of 
Constantinople, had fascinated my imagination; and I could not 
believe that some fuller records of their inner teaching did not 
survive in the Armenian tongue. In this quest, though my other 
failed, I was rewarded. I learned during my stay at Edjmiatzin, 
that in the library of the Holy Synod there was preserved a manu- 
script of Zhe Key of Truth, the book of the Thonraketzi or Paulicians 
of Thonrak, with whom I was familiar from reading the letters of 
Gregory Magistros, Duke of Mesopotamia in the eleventh century. 

I was permitted to see the book, of which a perfunctory exami- 
nation convinced me that it was a genuine monument, though, as I 
then thought it, a late one of the Paulicians. For I found in it the 
same rejection of image-worship, of mariolatry, and of the cult of 
saints and holy crosses, which was characteristic of the Paulicians. 
I could not copy it then without leaving unfinished a mass of 
other work which I had begun in the conventual library; and I 
was anxious to get to Dathev, or at least back to Tiflis, before the 
snow fell on the passes of the anti-Caucasus. However, I arranged 
that a copy of the book should be made and sent to me; and this 
I received late in the year 1893 from the deacon Galoust Tér 
Mkherttschian. 

My first impression on looking into it afresh was one of 
disappointment. I had expected to find in it a Marcionite, or at 


vi PREFACE 


least a Manichean book; but, beyond the extremely sparse use 
made in it of the Old Testament, I found nothing that savoured 
of these ancient heresies. Accordingly I laid it aside, in the press of 
other work which I had undertaken. It was not until the summer 
of 1896 that, at the urgent request of Mr. Darwin Swift, who had 
come to me for information about the history of Manicheism in 
Armenia, I returned to it, and translated it into English in the hope 
that it might advance his researches. 

And now I at last understood who the Paulicians really were. 
All who had written about them had been misled by the calumnies 
of Photius, Petrus Siculus, and the other Greek writers, who 
describe them as Manicheans. I now realized that I had stumbled 
on the monument of a phase of the Christian Church so old and 
so outworn, that the very memory of it was well-nigh lost. For 
The Key of Truth contains the baptismal service and ordinal of 
the Adoptionist Church, almost in the form in which Theodotus 
of Rome may have celebrated those rites. These form the oldest 
part of the book, which, however, also contains much controversial 
matter of a later date, directed against what the compiler regarded 
as the abuses of the Latin and Greek Churches. The date at 
which the book was written in its present form cannot be put later 
than the ninth century, nor earlier than the seventh. But we can 
no more argue thence that the prayers and teaching and rites 
preserved in it are not older, than we could contend, because our 
present English Prayer Book was only compiled in the sixteenth 
century, that its contents do not go back beyond that date. The 
problem therefore of determining the age of the doctrine and rites 
detailed in Zhe Key of Truth is like any other problem of Christian 
palaeontology. It resembles the questions which arise in con- 
nexion with the Didaché or The Shepherd of Hermas; and can 
only be resolved by a careful consideration of the stage which it 
represents in the development of the opinions and rites of the 
church. In my prolegomena 1 have attempted to solve this problem. 
I may here briefly indicate the results arrived at. 

The characteristic note of the Adoptionist phase of Christian 
opinion was the absence of the recognized doctrine of the Incarna- 
tion. Jesus was mere man until he reached his thirtieth year, 
when he came to John on the bank of the Jordan to receive 
baptism. Then his sinless nature received the guerdon. The 
heavens opened and the Spirit of God came down and abode with 


PREFACE vii 


him. The voice from above proclaimed him the chosen Son of 
God; a glory rested on him, and thenceforth he was the New 
Adam, the Messiah ; was the power and wisdom of God, Lord of 
all creation, the first-born in the kingdom of grace. Of divine 
Incarnation other than this possession of the man Jesus by the 
divine Spirit, other than this acquiescence of it in him, who had as 
no other man kept the commands of God, the Adoptionists knew 
nothing. And as he was chosen out to be the elect Son of God 
in baptism, so it is the end and vocation of all men, by gradual 
self-conquest, to prepare themselves for the fruition of God’s grace. 
They must believe and repent, and then at a mature age ask for 
the baptism, which alone admits them into the Church or invisible 
union of the faithful; the spirit electing and adopting them to be 
sons of the living God, filled like Jesus, though not in the same 
degree, with the Holy Spirit. ‘Et ille Christus, et nos Christi’’ 

For those who held this faith, the Baptism of Jesus was neces- 
sarily the chief of all Christian feasts; and the Fish the favourite 
symbol of Jesus Christ, because he, like it, was born in the waters. 
Hence it is that when we first, about the end of the third century, 
obtain a clear knowledge of the feasts of the church, we find that 
the Baptism stands at the head of them. It is not until the close 
of the fourth century that the modern Christmas, the Birth of Jesus 
from the Virgin, emerges among the orthodox festivals, and displaces 
in the minds of the faithful his spiritual birth in the Jordan. First 
in Rome, and soon in Antioch and the nearer East, this new festival 
was kept on Dec. 25. In the farther East, however, in Egypt, 


1 The phrase is that of the Spanish Adoptionists. But the thought was fully 
expressed five centuries earlier by Methodius, Convdv. viii. 8: ἡ ἐκκλησία 
σπαργᾷ καὶ ὠδίνει, μέχριπερ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μορφωθῇ γεννηθείς, ὅπως ἕκαστος 
τῶν ἁγίων τῷ μετέχειν Χριστοῦ Χριστὸς γεννηθῇ. ‘The Church is big with 
child, and is in travail, until the Christ in us is fully formed into birth, in order 
that each of the saints by sharing in Christ may be born a Christ,’ that is, 
through baptism. And just below he continues thus: ‘ This is why in a certain 
scripture we read, ‘‘ Touch not my Christs...”; which means that those who have 
been baptized by participation of the Spirit into Christ, have become Christs.’ 
Harnack well sums up the teaching of Methodius as follows (Dogmengesch. 
bd. i. 746 (701): ‘For Methodius the history of the Logos-Christ, as Faith 
holds it, is but the general background for an inner history, which must repeat 
itself in every believer: the Logos must in his behalf once more come down 
from heaven, must suffer and die and rise again in the faithful.’ So Augustine, 
in Toh. ἐγ. 21,n. 8: ‘Gratias agamus non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed 
Christum.’ Such then was also the Paulician conviction. 


viii PREFACE 


in Armenia, and in Mesopotamia, the new date for the chief festival 
was not accepted, and the commemoration of the earthly or human 
birth of Jesus was merely added alongside of the older feast of his 
Baptism, both being kept on the old day, Jan. 6. 

We are only acquainted with the early Christianity of the Jewish 
Church through the reports of those who were hostile to it, and 
who gave to it the name of Ebionite, signifying probably such 
an outward poverty in its adherents, and such a rigid simplicity 
in its liturgy and rites, as characterized the Paulician Church, and 
provoked the ridicule of the orthodox Armenian writers. 

It is certain, however, that the christology of this church was 
Adoptionist. Through Antioch and Palmyra this faith must have 
spread into Mesopotamia and Persia; and in those regions became 
the basis of that Nestorian Christianity which spread over Turkestan, 
invaded China, and still has a foothold in Urmiah and in Southern 
India. From centres like Edessa, Nisibis, and Amida it was 
diffused along the entire range of the Taurus, from Cilicia as far 
as Ararat, and beyond the Araxes into Albania, on the southern 
slopes of the Eastern Caucasus. Its proximate centre of diffusion 
in the latter region seems to have been the upper valley of the 
great Zab, where was the traditional site of the martyrdom of 
St. Bartholomew, to whom the Armenians traced back the succes- 
sion of the bishops of the canton of Siuniq, north of the Araxes. 
In Albania, Atropatene, and Vaspurakan to the east of Lake Van, 
and in Moxoéne, Arzanene, and Taraunitis to its south and west, 
as most of the early Armenian historians admit, Christianity was 
not planted by the efforts of Gregory the Illuminator, but was long 
anterior to him and had an apostolic origin. ‘That it was a faith of 
strictly Adoptionist or Ebionite type we know from the Disputation 
of Archelaus with Mani. For Archelaus, though he wrote and 
spoke in Syriac, was the bishop of an Armenian see which lay 
not far from Lake Van!. 


* The identification (see pp. cii, ciii) of the See of Archelaus is somewhat 
confirmed by the fact (communicated to me by Father Basil Sarkisean) that 
Karkhar is the name of a hilly region (not of a town) in the vilayet of Bitlis, 
about one hour south of Van, But De Morgan’s map (A/ission Scientifique en 
Perse, 1896) of the country east of Lake Urmiah inclines one to identify the 
Karkhar of Archelaus with that of Wardan, which certainly lay in the canton 
of Golthn, on the Araxes. For this map marks a town called Arablou 
(i.e. Arabion castellum) on the north bank of the river Karanghou (which 


Ee 


PREFACE ix 


The Taurus range thus formed a huge recess or circular dam 
into which flowed the early current of the Adoptionist faith, to be 
therein caught and detained for centuries, as it were a backwater 
from the main stream of Christian development. Here in the 
eighth and ninth centuries, even after the destruction of the Mon- 
tanist Church, it still lingered in glen and on mountain crest, in 
secular opposition to the Nicene faith, which, backed by the armies 
of Byzantium, pressed eastward and southward from Caesarea of 
Cappadocia. The historical Church of Armenia was a compromise 
between these opposed forces ; and on the whole, especially in the 
monasteries, the Nicene or grecizing party won the upper hand; 
dictating the creed and rites, and creating the surviving literature of 
that Church. But the older Adoptionist Christianity of south-east 
Armenia was not extinct. In the eighth century there was that 
great revival of it, known in history as the Paulician movement. 
A Paulician emperor sat on the throne of Byzantium; and away 
in Taron, about 800 a.p., the old believers seem to have organized 
themselves outwardly as a separate church; and a great leader 
stereotyped their chief rites by committing them to writing in 
an authoritative book. That book survives, and is Zhe Key of 
Truth. 

In the West the Adoptionist faith was anathematized at Rome in 
the person of Theodotus as early as 190 a.D., but not before it had 
left a lasting monument of itself, namely, Zhe Shepherd of Hermas. 
It still survived in Moorish Spain, and was there vigorous as late as 
the ninth century; and it lived on in other parts of Europe, in 
Burgundy, in Bavaria, and in the Balkan Peninsula, where it was 
probably the basis of Bogomilism. It is even not improbable that 


may be the modern form of Stranga), halfway from its source in the Sahend 
hills (due south of Tabreez) towards Sefid, near Resht, where it flows into the 
Caspian. This Arablou is about 100 miles, or three days’ ride, south of 
Urdubad on the Araxes, the traditional site of the evangelizing activity of 
St. Bartholomew. Cedrenus (xi. 575) indicates that the Stranga was the 
boundary between Persia and Roman Vaspurakan in the eleventh century just 
as it had been in the third. This view would still locate the See of Archelaus 
in Pers-Armenia, on the borders of Albania and Siuniq, and in the very region 
where King Arshak (see p. cxiii), the enemy of St. Basil, found heretically 
minded bishops ready to consecrate as catholicos his own nominee. In the 
absence of surveys and better maps it is difficult to decide between these 
alternative views; but one or other of them must be correct, and they both 
prove that Archelaus was an Armenian bishop. 


x PREFACE 


it was the heresy of the early British Church. But it has left few 
landmarks, for the rival christology which figured Jesus Christ not 
as a man, who by the descent of the Spirit on him was filled with 
the Godhead, but as God incarnate from his virgin mother’s womb, 
advanced steadily, and, like a rising tide, soon swept over the whole 
face of Christendom ; everywhere effacing literary and other traces 
of the Adoptionist faith, which seems thenceforward to have only 
lived on in Languedoc and along the Rhine as the submerged 
Christianity of the Cathars, and perhaps also among the Waldenses. 
In the Reformation this Catharism comes once more to the surface, 
particularly among the so-called Anabaptist and Unitarian Chris- 
tians, between whom and the most primitive church Zhe Key of 
Truth and the Cathar Ritual of Lyon supply us with two great 
connecting links. 

How, it may be asked, could such a revolution of religious 
opinion as the above sketch implies take place and leave so little 
trace behind? But it has left some traces. The Leber Sententtarum 
is the record of the Inquisition of Toulouse from 1307-1323, and 
for that short period its 400 closely printed folio pages’ barely 
suffice to chronicle the cruelties perpetrated in the name of the 
God of mercy by the clergy of the orthodox or persecuting Church 
of Rome. A hundred such volumes would be needed to record 
the whole tale of the suppression of the European Cathars. And 
if we ask what has become of the literature of these old believers of 
Europe, an examination of the lately found eleventh-century MS. 
of the Peregrinatio of St. Sylvia suggests an answer. This precious 
codex contained a description of the Feast of the Baptism, the old 
Christmas day, as it was celebrated on Jan. 6 in Jerusalem towards 
the close of the fourth century. It was the one tell-tale feast, the 
one relic of the Adoptionist phase of Christianity which the book 
contained; and the details of its celebration would have had an 
exceptional interest for the Christian archaeologist of to-day. But 
the particular folio which contained this information, at some 
remote period, and probably in the monastery of Monte Casino 
where it was written, has been carefully cut out. If such precau- 
tions were necessary as late as the twelfth century, what must not 
have been destroyed in the fourth and fifth centuries, when the 
struggle between the rival christologies raged all over the East 


1 T refer to Limborch’s edition. 


PREFACE ΧΙ 


and West? Then it was that the bulk of the Christian literature 
of the second and early third centuries perished, and was irrevo- 
cably lost. 

Because I have sometimes referred to the Adoptionists as heretics, 
I trust I may not be supposed to have prejudged the case against 
them. In doing so I have merely availed myself of a conventional 
phrase, because it was convenient and clear. For it has been no 
part of my task to appraise the truth or falsehood of various forms 
of Christian opinion, but merely to exhibit them in their mutual 
relations; and, treating my subject as a scientific botanist treats 
his flora, to show how an original genus is evolved, in the process of 
adaptation to different circumstances, into various species. It rests 
with the authoritative teacher of any sect to determine, like a good 
gardener, which species he will sow in his particular plot. The 
aim of the scientific historian of opinion is only to be accurate and 
impartial; and this I have tried to be, moving among warring 
opinions, ‘sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.’ If I 
have occasionally waxed warm, it has been before the spectacle of 
the cruel persecution of innocent people. And of a truth a pathetic 
interest attaches to such a book as this Key of Truth, in which, in 
tardy fulfilment of Gibbon’s hope, the Paulicians are at last able to 
plead for themselves. It was no empty vow of their elect ones, 
‘to be baptized with the baptism of Christ, to take on themselves 
scourgings, imprisonments, tortures, reproaches, crosses, blows, 
tribulation, and all temptations of the world.’ Theirs the tears, 
theirs the blood shed during more than ‘ten centuries of fierce 
persecution in the East; and if we reckon of their number, as well 
we may, the early puritans of Europe, then the tale of wicked deeds 
wrought by the persecuting churches reaches dimensions which 
appal the mind. And as it was all done, nominally out of reve- 
rence for, but really in mockery of, the Prince of Peace, it is hard 
to say of the Inquisitors that they knew not what they did. 

Even while we reprobate the tone of certain chapters of Zhe 
Key, in which the orthodox churches are represented as merely 
Satanic agencies, we must not forget the extenuating fact that for 
over five centuries the Adoptionists had in Rome and elsewhere 
been under the heel of the dominant faction. If we hunt down 
innocent men like wild animals, they are more than mortal, if they 
do not requite many evil deeds with some few bitter words. And 
one point in their favour must be noticed, and it is this. Their 


Xii PREFACE 


system was, like that of the European Cathars, in its basal idea and 
conception alien to persecution ; for membership in it depended 
upon baptism, voluntarily sought for, even with tears and supplica- 
tions, by the faithful and penitent adult. Into such a church there 
could be no dragooning of the unwilling. On the contrary, the 
whole purpose of the scrutiny, to which the candidate for baptism 
was subjected, was to ensure that his heart and intelligence were 
won, and to guard against that merely outward conformity, which 
is all that a persecutor can hope to impose. It was one of the 
worst results of infant baptism, that by making membership in the 
Christian Church mechanical and outward, it made it cheap; and 
so paved the way for the persecutor. Under this aspect, as under 
some others, the Adoptionist believers, and the Montanists, and 
certain other sects, passed with the triumph and secularization of 
Christianity under Theodosius into the same relative position 
which the early Christians had themselves occupied under the 
persecuting Roman government; whose place in turn the dominant 
or orthodox church now took in all respects save one,—namely, 
that it was better able to hunt down dissenters, because the In- 
quisitors knew just enough of the Christian religion to detect 
with ease the comings in and goings forth of their victims. 
Built into the walls and foundations of a modern church we 
can often trace the fragments of an earlier and ruined edifice, but 
are seldom privileged to come upon a complete specimen of the 
older structure. Now into the fabric of many of our beliefs to-day 
are built not a few stones taken from the Adoptionists; often 
retrimmed to suit their new environment. In Zhe Key of Truth 
we for the first time recover a long-past phase of Christian life, and 
that, not in the garbled account of an Epiphanius, or in the jejune 
pages of an Irenaeus or Hippolytus ; but in the very words of those 
who lived it. A lost church rises before our eyes; not a dead 
anatomy, but a living organism. We can, as it were, enter the 
humble congregation, be present at the simple rites, and find our- 
selves at home among the worshippers. And it is remarkable how 
this long-lost church recalls to us the Zeaching of the Apostles. 
There is the same Pauline conception of the Eucharist indicated 
by the stress laid on the use of a single loaf, the same baptism in 
living water, the same absence of a hierarchy, the same description 
of the President as an Apostle, the same implied Christhood of the 
elect who teach the word, the same claim to possess the Apostolical 


PREFACE ΧΙ 


tradition. It is no far-fetched hypothesis that the Dedaché is itself 
the handbook of an Adoptionist Church. 

My Introduction contains many hints towards a history of the 
feast of Christmas; but I have mostly confined myself to Armenian 
sources inaccessible to many scholars. The Greek evidence is well 
gathered together in Prof. Hermann Usener’s suggestive study on 
the subject; and I have hardly noticed it, lest my book should 
assume unwieldy dimensions. Another work to the author of 
which I am under obligations is the Dogmengeschichte of Prof. 
Harnack. In my discussion of the origins of the Armenian 
Church I have been largely guided by the luminous tract of 
Prof. Gelzer on the subject. Of other works consulted by me 
I have added a list at the end of my book. 

I feel that many of the views advanced in my Introduction will 
be sharply criticized, but I do not think that my main conclusions 
in regard to the character of the Paulician Church can be touched. 
The intimate connexion between adult baptism and the school of 
Christian thought represented by Paul of Samosata is evidenced 
in a passage of Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on Luke, first 
published by Mai‘. In it Cyril assails Paul of Samosata’s inter- 
pretation of the word ἀρχόμενος in Luke iii. 23, namely, that the 
man Jesus then degan to be the Son of God, though he was, in 
the eye of the law (ὡς ἐνομίζετο), only son of Joseph. There 
follows a lacuna? in which Cyril coupled with this interpretation 
a form of teaching which he equally censured, namely, that all 
persons should be baptized on the model of Jesus at thirty years 
of age. This teaching was plainly that of the Pauliani, and we 
find it again among the Paulicians. 


1 Noua Biblioth. Patrum, tom. ix; reprinted in Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. 72, 
col. 524. The Syriac version (edited by R. Payne Smith) has not this passage, 
which however seems to me to be Cyril’s. 

2 Cyril continues: ‘Thus much harm and unexpected results from such 
a delaying of the grace through baptism to a late and over-ripe age. For 
firstly, one’s hope is not secure (i.e. a man may die prematurely), that one will 
attain one’s own particular wishes; and even if in the end one does so gain 
them, one is indeed made holy; but gains no more than remission of sins, 
having hidden away the talent, so that it is infructuous for the Lord, because 
one has added no works thereunto.’ Mai’s note on the above is just : ‘ Uidetur 
in praecedentibus (nunc deperditis) Cyrillus uerba eorum retulisse, qui ut 
baptismum differrent, Christi exemplum obiiciebant anno aetatis trigesimo 
baptizati.’ 


Xiv PREFACE 


Where my conclusions are at best inferential, I have qualified 
them as such. To this class belongs the view that Gregory the 
Illuminator was himself an Adoptionist. I agree with Gelzer that 
his Teaching as preserved in the Armenian Agathangelus or in 
the independent volume of his Sf/roma/a cannot be regarded as 
altogether authentic. It would be interesting to know in what 
relation the fragments of his Teaching preserved in Ethiopic stand 
to the Armenian documents. An Azaphora ascribed to him is also 
found in the Ethiopic tongue, but is so common in collections 
of Ethiopic liturgies that it is probably worthless. It is, however, 
remarkable that no trace of it remains in Armenian. 

My suggestion that the European Cathars were of Adoptionist 
origin also rests on mere inference. But they had so much in 
common with the Paulicians, that it is highly probable. My 
kindred surmise that the early British Church was Adoptionist 
seems to be confirmed by two inscriptions recently communicated 
to me by Prof. J. Rhys. These were found in North Wales and 
belong to the sixth to eighth centuries. They both begin with the 
words: ‘In nomine Dei patris et filii Spiritus Sancti'’ This 
formula takes us straight back to Zhe Shepherd of Hermas?’, in 
which the Son of God is equated with the Holy Spirit; and it 


' These inscriptions occur on archaic crosses and are figured in Prof. West- 
wood’s work. He agrees with Prof. Rhys about their date. 2/2 in one of 
them is represented only by an /, detected by Prof. Rhys alone. In the other 
the word Sanctz is barely legible. The same formula, ‘ Sanctus Spiritus, Dei 
filius,’ occurs in the Adoptionist tract, De Montibus Sina et Sion, c. 13, quoted 
in my Introduction, p. ci. The formula ‘In nomine Dei summi’ also occurs 
four times in these early Christian inscriptions of Wales, and seems to be both 
anti-Trinitarian and connected with the series of inscriptions in honour of θεὸς 
ὕψιστος, found in Asia Minor and referred by Schurer (S7tzungsber. der Akad. 
d. Wiss. 2u Berlin, March 4, 1897, t. xiii. p. 200) and Franz Cumont 
(Supplém. ἃ la Revue de Tinstruction publique, Bruxelles, 1897) to Jewish 
influence. The occurrence of the same formula on early crosses in Wales shows — 
that it may have been used in Asia Minor by Christians ; and Gregory of Nyssa 
(c. Eunom, xi, sub fin.) accuses the ‘ Arians,’ i.e. the Adoptionists of Asia 
Minor, of baptizing not in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but 
of the Creator and Maker only, whom they, like the author of the Key (p. 115), 
‘regarded as not only the Father, but as the God of the only-born Son.’ The 
survival of such formulae on these old Welsh crosses explains why Bede 
rejected the baptism of the British Christians, and why Aldhelm (A.D. 705) 
denied that they had the ‘ Catholicae fidei regula’ at all. 

* See Hermae Pastor (edit. Oscar de Gebhardt and Ad. Harnack, Lipsiae, 
1877), Sim. v. 5, with the editors’ notes. 


PREFACE XV 


also exactly embodies the heresy of which Basil deplored the 
prevalence in the eastern regions of Asia Minor’. ‘These inscrip- 
tions therefore rudely disturb the ordinary assumption that the 
early Celtic Church was ‘catholic in doctrine and practice’,’ as if 
Bede had meant nothing when he studiously ignored St. Patrick 
and denied that the British bishops even preached the Word. 

In the Appendices which follow the text of the Aey, I have 
translated from old Armenian authors such connected notices 
of the Paulicians as they preserve. I have also added the letter of 
Macarius to the Armenians, because of the light which it sheds 
on their early Church. The Provengal Cathar ritual of Lyon, which 
I also include, has never been translated into English; though 
it is an unique monument of the forerunners of the European 
reformation. 

It remains for me to thank those who have helped me with their 
advice and encouragement. Mr. Rendel Harris read the transla- 
tion of the text and made many valuable suggestions. Most of all 
my thanks are due to the Clarendon Press for their liberality in 
publishing my book, and to the deacon Galoust Tér Mkherttschian, 
who both copied for me the Edjmiatzin MS. of Zhe Key of Truth 
and collated my text with it after it was in print. I earnestly 
hope that there may be found a second MS. of the book, which, by 
filling up the large lacunae of this, may clear up the many points 
which because of them remain obscure. 


1 See below, p. cxiv. ; 
21 quote Warren’s Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 45. 


CONTEN As 


PAGE 


PREFACE : : 5 : Pep AY 
SUMMARY OF THE INTRODUCTION : : 6 xvii 
INTRODUCTION Xxiii-CxCvi 
ARMENIAN TEXT : A 1-66 
TRANSLATION OF THE ARMENIAN TEXT 67-124 
APPENDIX I. THE LETTER OF GREGORY OF NAREK 125 
5 II. EXCERPTS FROM ARISTACES OF LASTIVERT 131 
+ 11. EXCERPTS FROM GREGORY MAGISTROS 141 
Ἢ IV. EXCERPTS FROM JOHN ΟΕ OTZUN . 152 
es V. EXCERPTS FROM NERSES SHNORHALI 155 
” VI. THE PROVENGAL RITUAL OF THE 
ALBIGEOIS : : : : 160 
" VII. EXCERPTS FROM ISAAC CATHOLICOS wl 
»  WIII. EXCERPTS FROM PAUL OF TARON 174 
Σ IX. Macarius’ EPISTLE TO THE ARMENIANS 178 
EXCURSUS ON THE ARMENIAN STYLE OF Zhe Key of 
Truth - : : : : : : : 187 
NOTE ON THE TRANSLITERATION OF ARMENIAN NAMES . 190 
INDEX : ᾿ : : 191 
202 


List OF WORKS CONSULTED . ‘ 


_ 


SUMMARY OF THE INTRODUCTION 


(P. xxiii) Armenian Paulicians, called Thonraki, emigrate from 
Khnus in Turkey, and settle in Akhaltzik in Russian Armenia, 
A.D. 1828.—(xxiv) The Synod of Edjmiatzin appeals to the Russian 
Government to suppress them. An Inquisition opened, 1837.— 
(xxv-xxvi) Four confessions made of Paulician tenets.x—(xxvii) Zhe 
Key of Truth admitted to be their authoritative book.—(xxvili) The 
Russian Court at Tiflis fines the Paulicians, 1843.—(xxix) The Key of 
Truth is seized during this Inquisition. Description of it. Its age 
attested both by the colophon, and—(xxx) by the style.—(xxxi) The 
liturgical parts of the book are older than the rest, and belong 
perhaps to fourth century. The exordium the work of a great 
Paulician leader,—(xxxii) probably of Smbat, A.D. 800-850. Evidence 
on this point of Gregory Magistros.—(xxxlii-xl) The teaching of the 
Key is summarized under thirty-seven heads and shown to conform 
with the notices of Paulicians given in Armenian writers of the eighth 
to the twelfth centuries ;—(xli) and equally with the Greek sources in 
respect of the following points, viz.: their claim to be the Catholic 
Church, their rejection of similar claims on the part of the orthodox, 
their Adoptionist Christology, and belief that Jesus Christ was a crea- 
ture only,—(xlii) their rejection of Mariolatry and of intercession of 
saints and of cult of the cross,—(xliii) their canon of Scripture, their view 
of the Eucharist, their hatred of monks, and—(xliv) their appeal to 
Scripture. The Escurial MS. of Georgius Monachus is the oldest Greek 
source and best agrees with the Aey. The Paulicians not Mani- 
cheans.—(xlv) Loose use of ‘ Manichean’ by orthodox writers in dealing 
with opponents.—(xlvi) Did Paulicians hold that Jesus took flesh of the 
virgin ?—(xlvii) Their Eucharist not merely figurative. They only 
rejected orthodox rites because the orthodox had lost true baptism.— 
(xlviii) The Paulicians were ‘old believers.’ The report of the Inqui- 
sition of Arkhwéli in 1837 fills up lacunae in the Aey,—(xlix) as to 
Paulician baptism and Eucharist. Baptism at thirty years of age.— 
(1) Nocturnal Eucharistic celebrations. Baptism in rivers.—(li) Nature 
of Paulician elect ones. Evidence on this point of letters of Sergius, 
and—(lii) of exordium of Key.— (lii) Were the elect ones adored as 


b 


XVili THE KEY ‘OF sBRUGH 


Christs, because Christ was immanent in them ?—(liii) The Eucharistic 
elements in becoming the body of the elect became the body of Christ, 
and vice versa.—(liv) But the Paulicians admitted a metabolism of 
the blessed elements. St. Paul on immanence of Christ.—(lv) Re- 
semblance with the Paulician of the view of the Eucharist taken by 
Eckbert’s Rhenish Cathars in 1160.—(lvi) Proof from the Liber 
Sententiarum (1307) that the Cathars adored their elect ones.— 
(Ivii) Relation of Greek to Armenian sources about Paulicians. 
Analysis of John of Otzun’s account, A.D. 719.—(Iviiil) He seems to 
refer the heresy back to fourth century, and notices the solidarity of 
Albanian with Armenian Paulicians.—(lix) He evidences that they 
already sought the protection of the Arabs. Paulicians called Thonraki 
from Thonrak.— (1x) Description of Thonrak, their centre.—(lxi) Reasons 
for identifying Smbat of Thonrak with Smbat Bagratuni, adduced 
from Mekhitar, 1300, from Gregory of Narek, c. 975.—(Ixii) But 
Gregory Magistros does not favour this identification—(Ixiii) Evidence 
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ¢c. 958; of Thomas Artsruni, ¢. 940, 
and—(lxiv) of other Armenian chroniclers is favourable. History of 
Smbat Bagratuni. He was martyred by the Arabs, ας. 854, and— 
(Ixv) avenged by the men of Sasoun. The charge of apostasy made 
against him points to his having been a Paulician.—(Ixvi) Smbat must 
have belonged to the Bagratuni clan.—(Ixvii) Evidence that he was an 
earlier Smbat, and minister of Chosrow, c. 648. List of heresiarchs 
who succeeded Smbat.—(Ixvili) The Sergius of the Greek sources 
unknown to the Armenians.—(Ixix) Aristaces’ narrative, where laid. 
Topography of Harq and Mananali. Photius’ error as to Mananali. 
—(Ixx) Topography of Tdjaurm. Paulicianism rife in entire upper 
valleys of Euphrates and Tigris.—(Ixxi) Policy of Byzantine emperors 
to drive the Paulicians out of the empire. Magistros’ campaign did 
not get rid of them. Their recrudescence in Taron in eighteenth 
century,—(Ixxii) under the abbot John, the copyist of the Aey.— 
(Ixxiii) Geographical diffusion in Asia Minor of the Paulicians.— 
(Ixxiv) The Greek writers familiar with those of the Western Taurus, 
the Armenians with those of the Eastern only. Solidarity of Paulicians 
in West with those in East of the range.—(Ixxv) Their destruction by 
the Greek emperors paved the way for the Mohammedan conquest. 

(Ixxvi) A Greek summary of Paulician tenets preserved in Isaac 
Catholicos, twelfth century.—(Ixxvii-Ixxx) Translation with comments 
of Isaac’s summary.—(Ixxxi) The evidence of John of Otzun (c¢. 700) 
agrees point for point with the above summary, especially in respect 
of the Paulician rejection,—(Ixxxii) of stone altars and fonts,—(Ixxxiil) of 
adult baptism. The union of Agapé and Eucharist. Agreements of 
Isaac’s summary with the Didaché.—(Ixxxiv) Evidence of the Canons 
of Sahak (c. 425) as to union of Agapé and Eucharist.—(lxxxv) Early 
Armenian fasts. Isaac’s summary borne out by Nerses of Lambron’s 
picture of Armenian Christianity in Cilicia in twelfth century.— 
(Ixxxvi) The place of Paulicianism in the general history of Christian 


SUMMARY OF THE INTRODUCTION Χίος 


opinion. Its antiquity evidenced by John of Otzun, and by -- (Ixxxvii) 
Lazar of Pharp (c. 480). The organic unity of beliefs with rites seen 
in the Key is a proof of age and primitiveness.—(Ixxxviii) Coherence of 
Paulician Christology with baptismal usages and with rite of election. 
—(Ixxxix) The Key a monument of the Adoptionist Church, of which 
The Shepherd of Hermas is also a monument.—(xc) The Christology 
of latter book examined and shown to agree with that of Theodotus. 
—(xci) Traces of Adoptionism in Justin Martyr.—(xcii) Its identity with 
Ebionite Christology. Hippolytus’ account of Theodotus.— (xcili) Proba- 
bility that Theodotus, like the Paulicians, accepted John’s Gospel ; 
though the Alogi, his predecessors, rejected it-—(xciv) Adoptionism 
in Melito. Condemnation of Paul of Samosata.—(cxv) The latter's 
teaching.—(xcvi) Traces of Adoptionism in Lactantius. Evolution of 
Christian dogmas in the great centres of culture.—(xcvii) The Disputa- 
tion of Archelaus with Mani is an Adoptionist monument, for it teaches 
that Jesus was merely man before his baptism—(xcvili) and that he 
was not God incarnate. It excludes the ordinary interpretation of the 
miraculous birth.—(xcix) Jesus was fi/ius per profectum. Parallel 
descent of Holy Spirit on the faithful.—(c) Jesus became Christ and 
Son of God at his baptism. (εἰ) Karkhar the see of Archelaus was 
near Arabion Castellum on the Stranga, or—(cii) upper Zab ;—(ciii) and 
was therefore an Armenian see. Antiquity of Christianity in south- 
east Armenia.—(civ) The early Christianity of the Taurus range was 
Adoptionist, and—(cv) the name Paulician originally meant a follower 
of Paul of Samosata.—(cvi) The Paulicians, therefore, the same as the 
Pauliani of the Nicene fathers and of Ephrem. The Paulianist heresy 
reappeared in the empire in eighth century as a characteristically 
Armenian heresy.—(cvii) Early conflict in Armenia of the Adoptionist 
Christology with the Nicene, which came in from Cappadocia.— 
(cviii) The Adoptionists under name of Messalians condemned in 
Armenian council of Shahapivan (A. D. 447). Lazar of Pharp’s descrip- 
tion (A. D. 480) of Armenian heresy.—(cix) The heresy condemned at 
Shahapivan was the primitive Syriac Christianity of south-east 
Armenia, which—(cx) the grecizing Armenian fathers ignored, though 
it provided them with their earliest version of New Testament.— 
(cxi) Gregory the Illuminator was probably an Adoptionist believer, 
but his ‘Teaching’ has been falsified.—(cxii) Evidence of St. Basil’s 
letters as to the conflict in Armenia in fourth century of the rival 
schools of Christology. St. Nerses (died ¢. 374), Basil’s lieutenant, de- 
posed by King Pap, who—(cxiii) effected the final rupture with Caesarea. 
—(cxiv) Basil’s description of the popular heresy of Armenia proves 
that it was Adoptionist.—(cxv) It affirmed, like Eunomius’ creed, that 
Jesus Christ was a created being.—(cxvi) The orthodox Armenians 
shifted their ecclesiastical centre to Valarshapat from Taron, because 
of the prevalence of Adoptionists in latter region. Constantine V 
a Paulician.—(cxvii) The réle of Smbat. He did not create the heresy 
of the Thonraki, but only organized the old believers of Taron,— 


b2 


ΧΧ THE KEY- ΘῈ - TRUTH 


(cxviii) under a primate of their own. Till then the old belief had 
lurked among isolated clans.—(cxix) As their first primate he wrote 
down their rites in an authoritative book.—(cxx) The Thonraki claim 
to be the catholic church of St. Gregory, and to have the apostolical 
tradition. They repudiated the sacraments and orders of the grecizing 
Armenians as false.—(cxxi) The archaic nature of their baptismal 
views proved by their agreement with Tertullian, who—(cxxii) like 
them denounced infant-baptism. — (cxxili) Macarius of Jerusalem 
(c. 330) on ‘Arian’ heresy in Armenia. Paulicians hostile to a real 
hierarchy and to monks.—(cxxiv) The Paulician ‘elect’ one the 
synecdemos of the Greek sources. Were the ‘rulers’in the Paulician 
Church Elect ones ?—(cxxv) Use of the phrase ‘ original sin’ in the 
Key.—(cxxvi) The Paulicians borrowed it from the West, where it was 
already used in fifth century,—(cxxvii) and where the Latin Adoptionists 
may have originated it.—(cxxviii) Paulician system was opposed to 
hereditary priesthood and to blood-offerings in expiation of the sins of 
the dead.—(cxxix) Why the Western Paulicians renamed their con- 
gregations. No trace of this Schwarmerei among the Thonraki.— 
(cxxx) Their hostility to papal usurpation mistaken by their enemies 
for hostility to St. Peter.— (cxxxi) Differences between the Elect of 
the Manicheans and the Elect of the Paulicians. — (cxxxii) Both 
Churches held that Christ is immanent in the Elect. The real 
Manicheans of Armenia.—(cxxxill) The immanence of Christ in the 
Elect exampled from the New Testament, and—(cxxxiv) from early 
Christian writers ; especially Tertullian,—(cxxxv) whose views of the 
Virgin Mary and of the Eucharist were also shared by the Paulicians. 
—(cxxxvi) Tertullian, like them, held that the elements are typically and 
yet in some sense really the body and blood of Christ.—(cxxxvii) De- 
portation to Thrace of Paulicians of the Taurus,—(cxxxviii) where they 
created the Bogomile Church and survived into the last century.— 
(cxxxix) Crusaders met with Paulicians in Syria. First mention of 
them in Europe.—(cxl) Eckbert’s description of Rhenish Cathars 
indicates a sect akin to the Paulicians.—(cxli) The Cathar ritual of 
Lyon is an Albigeois book and has affinities with the Paulician ordinal, 
—(cxlii) though in some respects it is more primitive. Did the Albigeois 
baptize with water ?—(cxliii) The common ritual use of the name Peter 
in the Albigeois Covso/amentum and Paulician election service proves 
their common origin.—(cxliv) Both sects had the same conception of 
the Church as the communion of saints.—(cxlv) The Albigeois were 
not Manicheans, nor did they advocate the suicide of persons consoled. 
—(cxlvi) Differences in respect of baptism between the Lyon ritual 
and the Aey.—(cxlvii) A knowledge of the Paulicians was brought to 
Europe by the Crusaders,—(cxlviii) and there is no affiliation of the 
Cathars to the Bogomiles before Reinerius Saccho in 125 4.—(cxlix) The 
Consolamentum was a general form of laying on of hands in order to the 
reception of all gifts alike of the Spirit.—(cl) Possibility that Armenian 
refugees and colonists in Europe contributed to the Anabaptist move- 


SUMMARY OF THE INTRODUCTION XA 


ment.—(cli) Wiszowaty on the origin of the Anabaptists and Unitarians. 
(clii) The Pauliani were quartodecumans. Adoptionist festival of the 
Baptism of Jesus on sixth of January.—(cliii) The Bezan reading of 
Luke iii. 22. The Fish an Adoptionist emblem of Christ. The Gospel 
of the Baptism read on sixth οὗ January.—(cliv) 7Zestémonéa concerning 
the feast on sixth of January from canons of Clemens, Macarius,— 
(clv) from Nectarius and Hippolytus.—(clvi) Artemon, the reputed 
founder of the Christmas feast on December 25.—(clvii) Testimony of 
Melito, Cyprian, Marutha.—(clviii) The Syrian doctors on origin in Sun- 
worship of the Roman Christmas.—(clix) Isaac Catholicos on heretical 
character of Armenian feasts.—(clx) List of Armenian feasts in canons 
of Sahak.—(clxi) Was the Sabbath observed in the early Armenian 
Church ?—(clxii) Was the later Lenten fast evolved out of the forty 
days’ fast of the Adoptionists?——(clxiii) The Paulician Eucharist a sacred 
meal symbolic of Christian unity.—(clxiv) The ma¢a/ or eating of the 
flesh of a victim. St. Sahak’s conception of ‘Church’ the same as 
that of the Paulicians.—(clxv) Use of the terms synagogue and fros- 
eucha in early Armenian Church.—(clxvi) The wang or shelter- 
houses. Dislike of Paulicians for churches of wood and stone evidenced 
by—(clxvii) Nerses of Lambron, c. 1170. Dislike of vestments and 
ceremonies, universal among—(clxviii) Armenians of Western Taurus. 
—(clxix) Faustus the Manichean witnesses to the changed Christology 
of the Catholics of fourth century.—(clxx) Survival of Adoptionism in 
Spain, c. 800. Elipandus and the Pope.—(clxxi) Elipandus appeals 
to use of adopftiuus in Muzarabic liturgy.—(clxxii) Felix of Urgel 
explicitly Adoptionist in his views.—(clxxiii) He was controverted by 
Heterius and Alcuin.—(clxxiv) The heresy was not devised by Felix 
by way of converting Arabs.—(clxxv) Elipandus’ formula Christus 
inter Christos. — (clxxvi) Resemblance with Archelaus of Elipandus 
and Felix.—(clxxvii) Elipandus overlaid his Adoptionism with Nicene 
faith. — (clxxviii) But Heterius and Alcuin detected his heresy.— 
(clxxix) The early British Church was probably Adoptionist.— 
(clxxx) This implied by Bede’s persistent attacks on Adoptionism. 
—(clxxxi) Early faith of Gascony and Bavaria Adoptionist. The 
immanence of Christ in the preacher taught in the Dzdaché and in 
The Shepherd of Hermas.—(clxxxii) Origen’s view of the Incarnation 
agrees with that of the Adoptionists.—(clxxxiii) Montanists held the 
same view of the immanence of Christ, and extended it to women.— 
(clxxxiv) Traces of a similar view in Mani and the heretic Marcus. 
(clxxxv) Were the Paulicians in communion with the remnant of the 
Montanists ?—(clxxxvi) Two ways of eliminating original sin in Jesus: 
to deny, like Marcion, that he took flesh from his mother; or — 
(clxxxvii) to affirm with the Latin Church the immaculate conception 
of his mother. The former view may have been taken by the author 
of the Paulician Catechism.—(clxxxviii) Traces of an older Adoptionism 
in the existing rites of orthodox Armenians, e.g. in their Baptismal 
Service, which—(clxxxix) is meaningless, except in relation to adults ;— 


Xxil THE KEY ΘΕ. TRUGH 


(cxc) and in their ordinal. The two rival Christologies foreshadowed 
in Philo.—(cxci) Recapitulation of Adoptionist conceptions of priest- 
hood, of baptism, and of Eucharist.—(cxcii) Probability that the 
Adoptionists used and disseminated the Western Text of New Testa- 
ment. Traces of the same in the Aey.—(cxciii) The Adoptionist 
Christian year compared with that of the orthodox Churches. Philo 
on Epiphanies of the Logos.—(cxciv) Docetic tendencies inherent 
in the Incarnation-Christology ;—(cxcv) both in respect of the body 
and of the mind of Jesus. Reasons why this Christology allied itself 
with infant-baptism.—(cxcvi) Retrospect of the history of the Adop- 
tionist Church. 


INTRODUCTION 


At’ the end of the Russo-Turkish war in 1828-1829, a number 
of Turkish Armenians settled in the newly-acquired Russian terri- 
tory between Akhaltzik and Erivan, under the leadership of their 
bishop Karapet. In February, 1837, this bishop warned the Synod of 
the Orthodox Armenians in Edjmiatzin that in the village Arkhwéli 
in the province of Shirak there were twenty-five families of refugees 
from the village of Djéwiurm in the canton of Khnus, who were 
Thondraketzi*® or Paulicians of Thondrak or Thonrak. 

He complained that these heretics were carrying on a propa- 
ganda among their simple-minded neighbours, although in the 
presence of civil or ecclesiastical functionaries they feigned 
adhesion to the orthodox Armenian Church. ‘Some of our 
villagers,’ he wrote, ‘inform us how they openly, in the presence 
of the simple-minded, deny that the saints help us, deny the value 
of fasting, the benefit of prayer, and the like... And, although they 
have a priest, whom I saw in Khnus, and who is wholly without 
a knowledge of letters, he cannot lead them straight. Perhaps he 
does not care, for until now he keeps his peace.’ The bishop then 
prays the Synod to send to Arkhwéli a learned priest, to combat 
the spread of heresy. 

Two priests armed with authority were, in consequence of 
these representations, sent to the neighbourhood, but they could get 
no other answer from the persons suspected than: ‘We are 
children of the Illuminator*.’ However, others, who had listened 


' For most of the historical matter in pp. xxiii-xxviii I am indebted to an 
article published by M. A. Eritzean, of Tiflis, in the journal called Phords, 
Tiflis, 1880, under the title ‘ The Armenian Thonraketzi.’ 

2 In general I shall drop the general termination -/s2, and speak of the 
Thonraki or Thondraki, though of course Thonraketzi is the only Armenian 
equivalent for a dweller in Thonrak. 

5 See p. 132 for the testimony of Aristaces to the fact that the Paulician 
Church was one with the church founded by Gregory the Illuminater; and 
compare Gregory Mag., p. 147, ‘We are of the tribe of Aram, and agree with 
them in faith.’ 


XXiv tHE KEY OR TRUCE 


to their attacks on religion, admitted that a false elder, preaching 
the heresy, had appeared in Khnus, and had wished to enter 
their houses; but they averred that they had repelled him with 
anathemas. Five men pleaded that they had received the false 
teaching not knowing that it was opposed to that of the Armenian 
Church, and sued for forgiveness. This was on April 13, 1837. 

Not content with repressing the movement in Arkhwéli, the 
Holy Synod, through the Catholicos, made representations to the 
Bishop of Erzeroum in Turkey, requesting him to send agents to 
Khnus, which was in his diocese, and where a priest since dead 
had spread the heresy. These agents were to root out the heresy, 
if it still survived there. ‘The aid of the Russian Government was 
also invoked in the person of Baron Posén, Governor of the 
Caucasus, to put down the sectaries of Arkhwéli. The Governor 
in reply asked in what consisted the heresy of these villagers, and 
was informed that ‘ they rejected the intercession of the saints and 
spurned their images, denied the value of fasts and the benefit of 
prayer, disbelieved in the immaculateness of the holy Virgin, 
Mother of God, repudiated the sacrament of baptism, and the rest.’ 

About the same time an inhabitant of Giumri (now Alexan- 
drapol) named Karapet Mkrttchean, in a death-bed confession, 
revealed to an orthodox priest that he, with six others, some with 
their households, and some apart, had joined the Thonraki sect, 
being converted by persons from Arkhwéli, which is in the 
neighbourhood. His written confession was sent to the consistory 
of Erivan. He could read and write, and it runs as follows :— 


‘In 1837, at the feast of the Transfiguration in the month of 
June, Kirakos of Giumri Qésababayean, after hearing George the 
elder of Arkhwéli preach, renounced the holy faith, and also preached 
to me, Karapet, that Christ is not God. Through the preaching of 
Kirakos, Tharzi Sarkis with his family, Dilband Manuk, Grigor of 
Kalzwan with his household, Jacob Ergar, Avon of Kalzwan, and 
I, met in the room of Grigor of Kalzwan; and we took oath one 
with another not to disclose our secret to any. They in particular 
told me to inform no man of it. They 
I. convinced me that Christ is not God; 

2. made me blaspheme the cross, as being nothing ; 
3. told me that the baptism and holy oil of the Armenians is 
false; and that 


‘4. we must rebaptize all of us on whose foreheads the sacred 
oil of the wild beast is laid. 


INQUISITION OF ARKHWELI, 1837 XXV 


‘5. The mother of God? is not believed to be a virgin, but to 
have lost her virginity. 

“6. We reject her intercession ; and also 

“ἡ. whatever saints there be, they reject their intercession. 

‘8. They reject the mass and the communion and the confession, 
but say instead (i.e. to the orthodox): “Confess to your stocks and 
stones, and leave God alone.” 

“9. Moreover, those who choose to communicate eat the morsel 
and drink down the wine upon it, but do not admit the communion 
of the mass. 

‘ro. They say that we are the only true Christians on earth, 
whereas Armenians, Russians, Georgians, and others, are false 
Christians and idolators. 

‘zz. On our faces we make no sign of the cross. 

“12. Genuflexions are false, if made superstitiously. 

‘13. During fasts they eat. 

‘14. The canon-lore of the holy patriarchs they reject, and say 
that the councils of the patriarchs were false, and that their canons 
were written by the devil.’ 


After making this confession, Karapet affirmed his penitence and 
sought forgiveness. Three other confessions were obtained about 
the same time, which we give in the order in which M. Eritzean 
has printed them. The following is the deposition of Manuk 
Davthean of Giumri, who could not write :— 


‘In 1837, in February, during Shrovetide, on the first of the 
week, in the chamber of Grigor Kalzwan,‘I saw Tharzi Sargis 
reading the Gospel. First he read it, and then explained it. 

ἔα, He told us not to worship things made with hands; that is 
to say, images (or pictures) of saints and the cross, because these 
are made of silver, and are the same as idols. 

‘2, Christ is the Son of God, but was born a man of Mary, she 
losing her virginity, as it were by the earthly? annunciation of 
Gabriel. 

‘3. After suffering, being buried, and rising again, he ascended 
into heaven, and sat on the right hand of the Father, and is our 
Intercessor. 


1 The word answers to Zheotokos, and was conventionally used by these late 
Paulicians to denote the mother of Jesus. They of course reject the idea con- 
veyed in it. 

2 The text has holelén = earthly, or made of dust; but hogelén = “ spiritual,’ 
should perhaps be read. On the heresy involved, see below, p. clxxxvii. 


XXvi THE. KEY OF TRUTH 


“4. Except Christ we have no other intercessor ; for 

‘5. the mother of God they do not believe to be virgin; nor 

‘6. do they admit the intercession of saints. 

‘7. Neither are fasts ordained of God, but prelates have in- 
geniously devised them to suit themselves; wherefore it is right to 
break the fasts as we will. When you go into church, pray only 
to God, and do not adore pictures. 

“8. In the time of baptism it is unnecessary to anoint with oil, 
for this is an ordinance of men, and not of God. 

‘g. Ye shall not commit sin: but when ye have committed sin, 
whether or no ye confess to priests, there is no remission. It only 
avails you, if you pour out your sins to God. 

‘to. Genuflexion is unnecessary. 

‘t1. To say “Lord, Lord,” to priests is not necessary, but it is 
meet to say regularly that God and not man is Lord. 

412. Nor is it necessary to go to places on vows. 

‘13. Last of all he told me that Christ is not God, and then 
I understood the falsity of their faith.’ 


The third recantation written down was that of Avés Marturosean 
of Giumri, who could not himself write. He deposed that in 1837 
in February, in the chamber of Grigor of Kalzwan, he not only 
heard the teaching already detailed in the second recantation, but 
the following as well :- - 

‘rz. Ye shall keep the ten commandments which God gave to 
Moses. 

‘2. Christ is not God, but the Son of God and our Intercessor, 
sitting on the right hand of God. 

«3. Ye shall know Christ alone, and the Father. All other saints 
which are or have been on the earth are false. 

‘4. There is no need to go on vows to Edjmiatzin or Jerusalem. 

‘5. Ye shall confess your sins in church before God alone. 

‘6. The holy oil of Edjmiatzin is false, nor is it necessary unto 
baptism; but whenever ye pour one handful of water over the 
catechumen, he is baptized. For Christ commanded us to baptize 
with water. 

“ἡ. Ye shall always go to church; and to the priest at the time 
of confession ye shall not tell your sins, for they do not understand. 
But talk to them in a general sort of way. 

‘8. Always go to church, not that our kind considers it real; 
but externally ye shall perform everything, and keep yourselves 
concealed, until we find an opportunity; and then, if we can, we 


PAULICIAN TENETS CONFESSED XXVii 


will all return to this faith of ours. And we swear, even if they 
cut us to pieces, that we will not reveal it.’ 


‘Gregory of Kalzwan said as follows: “ Behold, I am the Cross ; 
light your tapers on my two hands, and give worship. I am able 
_ to give you salvation, just as much as the cross and the saints.” ’ 

The fourth confession referred to four of the persons whose 
names are given in the first. Two of them could read. Kirakos 
Khésay Babayean, already mentioned, deposes in his own writing 
to the truth of the previous recantations, and attests that he learned 
of Tharzi Sarkis Haruthiunean; and the latter, also in writing, 
admitted all, and added that he had learned everything in 1835 
from George the church-singer (or elder) of Arkhwéli, who had 
in his possession a MS. called The Key of Truth’, in which ‘ every- 
thing was written.’ It was this George who taught that all are 
false Christians, except the Nemetzni” who are true Christians. 

These revelations led to increased activity on the part of the 
synod of Edjmiatzin. Fresh representations were made to the 
Russian Governor of the Caucasus to put down the sectaries 
of Arkhwéli, and also to suppress the newly-arrived German 
Protestant missionaries, with whose activity the recrudescence of 
ancient heresy was alleged to be connected*. There were thirty 
families of Paulicians in Arkhwéli, who pretended that they had 
given up the heresy; and they had even built an orthodox church 
in their midst in order to avoid suspicion. Also five of the 
inhabitants had drawn up a document, entitled, ‘About the causes 
of the heresy of the new Manicheans and their followers.’ This 
they sent to the Government. In it was stated that ‘in the 
province of Khnus in the village of Djaurm (or Tschaurm) fifty- 
five years previously, a certain Armenian priest Ohannes (i.e. John) 
had joined the sect, and composed a book called Zhe Key of Truth. 
This Ohannes, under pressure from the Osmanli Government, had 
afterwards, along with his companions, accepted the Mohammedan 


1 Cp. p. lxxii below. 

2 That is, the German Millennarists from Wurtemburg who were settled in 
the Caucasus in 1817. They chose the Caucasus because they believed that at 
the end of the world Christians would find a place of refuge near the Caspian. 
See Missionary Researches in Armenia, by Eli Smith and H. G. O. Dwight. 
London, 1834. 

3 These missionaries came from Basle, and, with the approbation of the Czar 
Alexander, settled at Shusha, a little south of the present city of Elizabetpol, in 
1827. There they set up an Armenian and Tartar printing-press, which before 
long was forbidden. 


XXViili THE KEY?) OF TRUTH 


faith.” Of this Ohannes we shall give further details later on from 
another source’. It is enough here to remark that he was only 
the copyist, and not the composer of Zhe Key of Truth, as his own 
colophon therein sufficiently proves. 

In June, 1838, in consequence of fresh representations on the 
part of the Holy Synod of Edjmiatzin, the governor of Tiflis ordered 
an inquiry to be opened in Arkhwéli, to which the Erivan consistory 
was invited to send a deputy who could speak Russian, and should 
be versed in the doctrines of the orthodox Armenian Church. 
What came of this inquiry we do not know. In 1841, in 
consequence of fresh reports of the activity of the Paulicians 
of Arkhwéli in baptizing and communicating the peasants, the 
Erivan consistory once more petitioned the Holy Synod to set the 
civil power in motion. It is to the credit of the latter synod that, 
before taking so extreme a step, they advised the consistory to 
replace the incompetent orthodox priest of the village with one who 
could preach and had zeal and intelligence. The consistory replied 
that there was no priest in the diocese possessing such qualifications. 
It appears notwithstanding that the civil power was once more 
invoked; for in 1841 the military governor of Tiflis, General 
Praigon, ordered the local judge of Alexandrapol to decide the 
matter; and the latter had actually drawn up a voluminous report, 
when a general letter of amnesty was issued by the new Caar, 
April 16, 1841. In this amnesty the sectaries were included along 
with other offenders, and so gained a brief respite from the malice 
of their own countrymen. 

The Holy Synod, however, did not rest until in February, 1843, 
it procured that the sectaries should be excluded from the benefits 
of the amnesty, and the judicial inquiry into their doings, after all, 
carried out. The result was that in 1845 the criminal court of 
Tiflis fined the sectaries accused forty roubles, ordered them to 
conform to the orthodox Armenian Church, and forbad their 
ministrant to call himself a deacon. ‘The synod represented that 
this punishment was quite incommensurable with the heinous 
character of the offenders ; but their representations had no effect, 
and they do not seem to have since resumed these petty persecu- 
tions of their own compatriots. Perhaps one should be grateful to 
them for having, in the course of the struggle in 1837, seized and 
kept safe until now the Paulician manual of which I now proceed 
to speak in detail. 


See below, pp. Ixxi, xxii. 


THE KEY-OF ERUEH SEIZED ΣΧΈΣΙΣ 


The copy of Zhe Key of Truth, now preserved in the Archives 
of the Holy Synod of Edjmiatzin, is a small octavo MS. on paper, 
written neatly in what is called xofergzr or minuscule in Taron in 
1782. Many leaves are missing, about 38 out of the 150 which 
the book originally contained. According to the ‘Acts of the Holy 
Synod’ they were torn out by George of Arkhwéli, the owner of the 
book, when he found that he was detected and feared that it 
would be seized. The pages torn out were certainly those of which 
the contents were likely to give most offence. For the context 
shows that the lost leaves contained attacks on the abuses of the 
orthodox churches and doctrinal expositions, especially of the 
Christology of the sect. It is unfortunate that so much is lost, 
along with the liturgy of the mass which the copyist of 1782 also 
transcribed ; the first half of the colophon is also lost. ‘These lost 
portions, if we only had them, would have furnished decisive evidence 
in regard toa point which must be raised at the offset, namely this: 
Can this Key of Truth be regarded as a monument of the 
Paulicians of the eighth to the twelfth centuries? 

That it was composed long before 1782 is evident from the 
colophon, in which the copyist deplores the shortcomings, the 
faults of spelling, composition, and grammar in the book; and 
declares that they have all been introduced into it by unpractised 
copyists. He was conscious therefore that the work, before it 
reached his hands in 1782, had been handed down through at 
least several generations. ‘The many omissions in scripture cita- 
tions plainly due to similar endings point to the same conclusion. 
The marginal notes in the book are written by a hand later than 
that which wrote the text. The citations of scripture are in nearly 
all cases taken from the Armenian Vulgate as it was completed 
soon after a.p. 400. What differences there are may be due to 
inaccurate copyists. The references’ to the chapters and verses 
of Stephanus—which are added after citations, sometimes in the 
text, sometimes in the margin, sometimes in both at once—were 
already given by the scribe of 1782, at which date printed copies 
of the Armenian New Testament containing the chapters and 
verses of Stephanus had long been in circulation in Armenia. 
Some copyist of the Aey between 1680 and 1780 inserted these 
references; perhaps by way of shortening the work of transcrip- 
tion, for the text is often merely referred to and not copied out 
in full. 


Thus the colophon of 1782 at once disarms the criticism which 


XXX ΤΉ KEY “OF TRUGH 


would deny the book to be as old as the ninth century, because of ἡ 
the many vulgarisms of the text. These chiefly consist in a loose 
use of prepositions, such as would be most likely to creep in. Of 
the leading characteristics, however, which distinguish the modern 
dialects of Armenian from the old classical language there is barely 
any trace, aS any one acquainted with them will be able to judge. 
Some of these characteristics, e.g. the lengthened form of verbs 
like arenam for karem already confront us in more popularly 
written books (like the Armenian version of the Geoponica) of the 
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Zhe Key of Truth must 
long precede that age. The use of the accusative of the relative 
pronoun gor at the beginning of a new sentence, to connect it with 
what precedes, is very common in the Aey, and is at first sight 
modern; yet it is frequent in Zenob, who wrote about a.p. 800 
a history of Taron, the region in which Thondrak or Thonrak, 
a centre of the Armenian Paulicians, lay. This fact of the near 
geographical origin of both books also explains the considerable 
resemblance of style between Zenob’s history and the Aey. There 
are not a great many words in the Aey foreign to classical 
Armenian of the fifth century; but what there are we find, with 
three or four exceptions, in writers of the eighth to the thirteenth 
centuries, particularly in Gregory of Narek in the tenth. This 
statement is based on a study of nearly thirty such words’. 

It has to be borne in mind that, whereas all the works of the 
orthodox Armenian Church of an earlier time were composed in 
the learned language, Zhe Key of Truth is not likely to have 
been written in any tongue except that which was spoken among 
the poorer country people to whom the great Paulician leaders 
addressed themselves. Certainly the use of the Armenian New 
Testament might impart a slight classical tinge to their writings ; 
but there was no other influence at work to produce such a result. 
Like the great heretical writers who founded the vernacular litera- 
tures of modern Europe, Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, the unknown 
translators of the Provencal Testament of Lyon, so the founders 
of the Paulician Church must have addressed themselves not to 
monks and learned men but to the common people. But if this 
be so, we cannot suppose Zhe Key of Truth to have been written 
later than 850. 

The prayers in it remain pure and limpid examples of the 


Δ See the excursus at the end of the appendices, in which I enter into a more 
technical discussion of the style of the book. 


STYLE AND AGE OF THE KEY XXXi 


classical speech; and it is natural that they should have most 
successfully resisted the vulgarizing influence of centuries of rude 
and untaught copyists. They seem to me to be older than the 
controversial chapters which accompany them, and to belong to 
the fourth or fifth century. He who considers in what form an 
English book, written in the tongue of the ninth century and 
transmitted almost ever since entirely by copyists who were 
ignorant and persecuted peasants, would have come down to the 
present age, has a right to pass judgement on The Key of Truth. 
The history of the sect as we read it fills us with just wonder that 
their book is not tenfold more corrupt and vulgarized than it is. 
There is constantly visible in it the hand of some eloquent and 
earnest writer, who knew how to pen clear, bold, nervous, freely 
flowing and unembarrassed paragraphs in an age when, to judge by 
the works of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros, the Arme- 
nian Church writers were about to reach the lowest level of obscurity 
and affectation, of turgid pomposity and involution of phrase. 

On the whole, therefore, the evidence of the style is in favour of, 
and not against an early date. But when we consider the contents 
we are obliged to refer the book to the ninth century at latest. 
The exordium is unmistakably from the pen of some great leader 
and missionary of the Paulician Church. Mark the words: ‘I have 
not spared to give unto you, my new-born children of the universal 
apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the holy milk, whereby 
ye may grow in the faith.’ He has been inspired by the Holy 
Spirit to reveal ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ to those from 
whom till now the truth had been hidden by pedantry and deceit. 
He will with Zhe Key of Truth open ‘the door of truth,’ long 
since shut upon his flock by Satan. This exordium, almost 
Pauline in its mixture of tenderness and authority, bespeaks some 
great missionary and restorer of religion in Armenia. We have 
also hints of the cruel persecutions and vicissitudes which had too 
long delayed the appearance of a manual, to the composition of 
which ‘love of the truth of our Lord and zeal for the Holy Ghost, 
and the urgent entreaties of many believers had long since impelled 
him, At last, in response to the entreaties of many believers, and 
urged by supreme necessity, he has thrown aside all other interests 
of this transitory life in order to compose this humble and unpre- 
tentious book, which they are nevertheless to read and ponder unto 
the glory of Jesus Christ their mediator. 

All this presupposes a numerous body of believers looking up to 


XXXii THE KEY (OP TRUE 


one great teacher who has spent his life in ministering to them. 
The ‘supreme necessity’ must surely have been the approach of 
fierce persecution and perhaps of death. The reference in the 
context to the transitoriness of our life implies as much. 

Who can this teacher have been? Gregory Magistros records? 
that the ordinances of the Paulicians, whom a.p. 1042-1054 he 
drove out of the district of Thonrak and Khnus, had been drawn 
up for them 170” to 200 years before by Smbat, whom Gregory of 
Narek’, c. 960, also accuses of being the founder of the sect. This 
Smbat seems from their accounts to have made Thondrak or Thonrak 
the focus from which his missionary efforts radiated. ‘That he also 
died in this region, or that anyhow his tomb was there, may 
perhaps be inferred from the words of Gregory Magistros *. 

It is at least certain that the district of Thonrak continued to be 
after his death the religious centre of the Paulicians, who on that 
account were called Thonraki or Thonraketzi by the Armenians, 
just as the Jdonz homznes of the south of France were called 
Albigenses, from their association with Albi. If we may take the 
words of Magistros to imply that Smbat left writings regulating the 
faith and rites of his church, what more natural than to see in 
The Key of Truth one of these writings? It is even not rash to 
suppose that our Key of Truth was actually in the hands of 
Gregory Magistros; since this writer ascribes to the ‘accursed 
Smbat’ the teaching that dogs and wolves appear in the form of 
priests, a tenet which is thoroughly in keeping with Chapter viii 
of the Aey. We do not, it is true, find the exact words, but they 
may well have stood in the lost chapters. But after all we here 
are moving in a realm of surmise only, and we cannot assume as 
a fact, but only suggest as a hypothesis, that this Smbat was the 
author of Zhe Key of Truth. Apart from the notices of Gregory 
of Narek and Gregory Magistros, we should be inclined to refer 
the work to Sergius, the great Paulician apostle of the ninth 
century, concerning whom we have many notices in the Greek 
writers of that and the two following centuries. 

Even if Smbat’s authorship be questioned, there can be no 
doubt that the A’ey accurately reflects the opinions and rites of the 
Paulicians of the four centuries, 800-1200. We may discount the 
falsehood and ferocity of the orthodox or persecuting writers in 


1 See below, p. 148: ‘Smbat giving them their laws.’ 
2 See pp. 142, 145. 3. See pp. 126, 127, 129: ‘ their founder Smbat.’ 
* Cp. p. 146: ‘where the leaven of the Sadducees was buried.’ 


iS = BENETS; “ADULT SAPTISM XXXili 


their portraiture of those with whom they differed, and yet are 
struck by the agreement of the contents of the Aey with the rites 
and beliefs of the Paulician Church as we can glean them from the 
writings of John of Otzun in the eighth, of Narekatzi in the tenth, of 
Aristaces and Paul of Taron and Magistros in the eleventh, of Nerses 
in the twelfth centuries. In the following. summary of Paulician 
tenets, as they may be gathered from the pages of the Key, 
we add continual references to the works of these contemporary 
Armenian writers. Thus the reader can himself make a com- 
parison, and judge how closely Zhe Key of Truth corresponds 
with their statements, 


1. The writer and the reader of the Ay did not call themselves 
Paulicians, still less Thonraketzi. They were the ‘holy, universal, 
and apostolic Church,’ founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. 
In describing themselves the words catholic and orthodox are 
sometimes, but less often, added; perhaps because they shrank 
from the use of titles so closely identified with their persecutors. 


See the Key, pp. 73, 76, 80, 86, 87, and Zass¢m ; and cp. Greg. Mag. p. 147, 
where we read that the Paulicians, after anathematizing the ancient sects, would 
say: ‘ We do not belong to these, for they have long ago broken connexion 
with the church, &c. Also it is clear from pp. 141, 142 that the Paulicians of 
Thulail had, in their letter to the Syrian catholicos, represented themselves as 
belonging to the true Church. For this is the contention which Gregory so 
vehemently traverses. So also Greg. Mag. p. 148: ‘They say, We are 
Christians.’ 


2. The Church consists of all baptized persons, and preserves 
the apostolical tradition which Christ revealed to the apostles and 
they to the Church, which has handed it on by unbroken trans- 
mission from the first. 


See the Key, pp. 73, 74, 76, 80, 86, 87, 91, and pass¢m ; and cp. Greg. Narek, 
p- 126: ‘ They are not alien to the afostolical tradition’; and p. 127: ‘Such then 
are your afostolic men.’ Also the words on p. 126 hint at the Paulician claim: 
‘ There is much that is divine and everything that is afostolical that is yet 
denied by them. Of divine ordinances, the laying on of hands, as the apostles 
received it from Christ.’ 


3. The sacraments are three which are requisite to salvation, to 
wit, Repentance, Baptism, and the Body and Blood of Christ. 
Marriage, ordination, confirmation, extreme unction, are not neces- 
sary to salvation. 


See the Αγ, chap. iii. pp. 76, 77, and chap. xvi. pp. 86, 87; and in the 
Catechism, p. 119; and cp. John of Otzun, p. 154. 


ς 


XXXiV THE -KEY ΘΕ DRUTH 


4. All true baptism in accordance with the precepts of Christ, 
especially Mark xvi. 16, must be preceded by repentance and 
faith. 


See the Ay, chaps. i-iii. pp. 72-77; and Catechism, p. 117. 


5. Consequently infant baptism is invalid; and, in admitting it, 
the Latins, Greeks, and Armenians have lost their Christianity, 
lost the sacraments, forfeited their orders and have become a mere 
Satanic mimicry of the true faith. If any of them, even their 
patriarchs, would rejoin the true Church, they must be baptized. 


See in the Key, passim, but especially pp. 73, 74, 86; chap. xviii. p. 92; and 
the Catechism, p. 118. And cp. Greg. Nar. pp. 126, 127: ‘ We know that the 
Font is denied by them’; and Arist. p. 140: ‘They reject the Church’s baptism’; 
and Greg. Mag. p. 146: ‘ Our holy bishops,’ &c., and p. 147 he describes how in 
Thonrak alone he baptized over a thousand. ‘ We ask, Why do you not allow 
yourselves to be baptized. ...’ ‘ We are in no hurry to be baptized.’... So 
p- 148. On p. 144 he records that Smbat reckoned as in vain ‘all priestly 
functions,’ i.e. in the orthodox churches. So also Aristaces, p. 140: ‘Church 
and church ordinances they utterly reject.’ Greg. Mag. p. 144: ‘ Their graceless 
baptism.’ 

5. The catechumen or candidate for baptism must be of mature 
age, as was Jesus of Nazareth, in order that he may be able to 
understand, recognize, and repent of his sin, which is twofold, 
viz.: original, and operative or effective. 

See the Key, chap. ii. p. 74; chap. iii. p. 76; and particularly on p. 88, the 
words : ‘So must we also perform baptism when they are of full age like our 
Lord’; and inthe Catechism, p. 118. And ep. the passage of Greg. Mag. p. 146, 
just referred to, from which we may infer that the ‘young men’ of Thonrak 
were still unbaptized. Of similar import are the words addressed by Greg. 


Mag. p. 142, to the Thulaili: ‘Hold yourselves far aloof from these innocent 
children, . . . and let them come and receive baptism.’ 


6. Baptism is only to be performed by an elect or ordained 
member of the Church, and in answer to the personal demand of 
the person who seeks to be admitted into the Church. 


See the Key, pp. 77, 91, 92, 96. 


7. On the eighth day from birth the elect one shall solemnly 
confer a name on the new-born child, using a prescribed form of 


prayer. But he shall not allow any mythical or superstitious 
names, 


See the Azy, chap. xvi; and cp. the passage in John of Otzun, p. 153, begin- 
ning ; Similiter et primum parientis feminae... , in which the writer seems to 
glance at the ceremony of name-giving. 


ITS ADOPTIONIST CHRISTOLOGY XXXV 


8. In doctrine the Paulicians were Adoptionist, and held that 
Jesus the Messiah was born a man, though a new man, of the 
Virgin Mary; and that, having fulfilled all righteousness and 
having come to John for baptism, he received in reward for his 
struggles the Lordship of all things in heaven and earth, the grace 
of the divine spirit, whereby he was anointed and became the 
Messiah, and was elected or chosen to be the eternal only-born 
Son, mediator of God and man, and intercessor. 

See the Aey, chap. ii. pp. 74, 75; chap. v. p. 80; the prayer to the Holy 
Spirit on p. 100; p. 108, the whole prayer beginning, ‘King of Kings’; p. 114, 
and passin. 

9. They may also be called Unitarians, in so far as they believed 
that Jesus Christ was not creator but created, man, made and not 
maker. He was never God at all, but only the new-created Adam. 

See the Azy, p. 79, and especially the Confession of Faith in chap. xx. p. 94; 
pp. 108, 119, and assim. Greg. Mag. attests this, p. 148: ‘ At heart they do 
not own him (i.e. Jesus Christ) God, whether circumcised or not.’ The context 
implies that the Paulicians of Khnus had objected as against those who deified 
Jesus that a circumcised man could not be God. And it was this tenet, that 
Jesus was God, which the Thulaili rejected when they denied that they con- 
fessed any circumcised God. Perhaps the text of Gregory means that it was Jesus 
Christ, and not the position of the Paulicians of Khnus, that was rejected. 
I have not seen his text here. 


10. Jesus was born without original sin. 
See the Catechism, p. 119. 


11. The Holy Ghost enters the catechumen immediately after 
baptism (to exclude evil spirits), when a third handful of water is, 
in his honour, poured out over the catechumen’s head. He is also 
breathed into the elect one by the bishop at the close of the 
ordination service. 


See the Key, pp. 100, 109, 111, 112. [The beginning words of the prayer before 
the Holy Spirit, ‘ Forasmuch as thou wast made by the Father,’ are heretical. 


The MS. has fq fu, which means ‘made’ or ‘created.’ A slightly different 
reading, Ey fuy, would make the sense to be, ‘Thou didst proceed (or issue) 
from the Father.’ But /7fuy is the right reading. It is meant to contrast 
the Spirit with God the Father, who alone is whl, or ‘increate.’] 


12. The word Trinity is nowhere used, and was almost certainly 
rejected as being unscriptural. In baptism, however, three separate 
handfuls of water were poured over the head in the name of the 
Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy 
Spirit. Two or three words are erased in the baptismal formula, 

G2 


XXXVI THE KEY “OF TRUTH 


which would have explained more clearly the significance they 
attached to this proceeding, but it was clearly heretical or they 
would not have been erased. A ‘ figure’ follows in the text, p. 98, 
shadowing forth the meaning. The king, we learn, releases certain 
rulers (Ὁ ἄρχοντας) from the prison of sin; the Son calls them to 
himself and comforts and gives them hope; and then the Holy 
Spirit at once crowns them and dwells in them for ever and ever. 
This figure is also meant to exhibit the significance of genuine 
baptism. 


13. The Virgin Mary lost her virginity at the birth of Jesus, and 
is not ἀειπάρθενος, ever virgin. She was a virgin, however, till the 
new Adam was born. She cannot intercede for us, for Christ, our 
only intercessor, expressly denied blessedness to her because of her 
unbelief. 

See the Azy, pp. 113, 114; and cp. Greg. Mag. p. 146: ‘ They indulge in 
many other blasphemies against the holy virgin.’ 

14. There is no intercession of saints, for the dead rather need 
the prayers of the living than the living of the dead. 


See the Catechism, p. I20. 


15. The idea of Purgatory is false and vain. There is but one 
last judgement for all, for which the quick and the dead (including 
saints) wait. 

See the Catechism, pp. 121, 122; and cp. Paul of Taron, pp. 175, 176. 


16. Images, pictures, holy crosses, springs, incense, candles are 
all to be condemned as idolatrous and unnecessary, and alien to the 
teaching of Christ. 

See the Azy, pp. 86, 115 ; and cp. Greg. Mag. p. 145 : ‘ We are no worshippers 
of matter,” &c. Also p. 149: ‘ They represent our worship of God as a worship 
of idols ... we who honour the sign of the cross and the holy pictures.’ And 
cp. Greg. Nar. p. 127: ‘They deny the adored sign’ (i.e. the cross). Compare 
especially Arist. p. 137. 

17. The Paulicians are not dualists in any other sense than the 
New Testament is itself dualistic. Satan is simply the adversary 
of man and God, and owing to the fall of Adam held all, even 
patriarchs and prophets, in his bonds before the advent of Christ. 

See the Key, pp. 79, 114 (where it is specially declared that God created 
heaven and earth by a single word, and by implication is denied that Christ 
had any creative functions). 

18. Sins must be publicly confessed before God and the Church, 
which consists of the faithful. 


MARIOLATRY. IMAGES. EUCHARIST xxxvii 


See the Key, p. 96: ‘ What fruit of absolution hast thou? Tell it us before 
the congregation’; and cp. Arist. p. 134: James the Thonraki ‘ refused to hear 
auricular confessions.’ 

19. The elect ones alone have the power of binding and loosing 
given by Christ to the Apostles and by them transmitted to their 
universal and apostolic Church. 

See the Aey, pp. 105, 108; and cp. Arist. p. 133, on James the Paulician : 
“he began by establishing e/ection among priests.’ And cp. also the references 


under No. 37 below. Greg. Mag. says, p. 149: ‘ Many of them spare not to 
lay hands on the Church, on all priestly functions.’ 


20. Their canon included the whole of the New Testament 
except perhaps the Apocalypse, which is not mentioned or cited. 
The newly-elected one has given to him the Gospel and 
Apostolicon. The Old Testament is not rejected; and although 
rarely cited, is nevertheless, when it is, called the God-inspired 
book, A stowadsashountch, which in Armenian answers to our phrase 
‘Holy Scripture’ or ‘ Bible.’ 

See the Key, passim; and cp. Greg. Mag. p. 148: ‘They are for ever... 
quoting the Gospel and the apostolon.’ None of the Armenian sources accuse 
the Paulicians of rejecting the Old Testament in a manner in which they did 
not reject the New Testament. 


21. In the Eucharist the bread and wine are changed into the 
body and blood of Jesus Christ through the blessing invoked. 
Yet when he said to his followers : ‘ My body is the true food and 
my blood the true drink, and again, ‘I am the bread of life which 
came down from heaven,’ he spoke in figures. However, in the 
last supper, when he blessed the elements, 1. 6. prayed the Lord that 
the bread might be truly changed into his body, it was verily so 
changed by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus saw that it was so and 
thanked the Almighty Father for the change of it into his body 
and blood. 


See the Catechism, p. 123. 


21. The false priests (of the orthodox Churches) either deceive 
the simple-minded with mere bread, or—what is worse—they 
change the elements into their own sinful bodies when they say 
‘This is my body,’ instead of changing them into Christ’s. j 

See the Catechism, pp. 123, 124; and cp. Greg. Nar. p. 126: ‘ This commu- 
nion bread Smbat taught to be ordinary bread.’ From this we cannot infer 
what exactly was Smbat’s error, but the words testify to the Paulician sacrament 
of the body and blood, however they celebrated it. Cp. also Greg. Mag. 
p- 148: ‘Jesus in the evening meal spoke not of the offering of the Mass, but 
of every table.’ 


XXXVili THE KEY (OF ΠΕ ΕΗ 


22. One unleavened loaf and wine are to be offered in the 
eucharistic sacrifice. 
See the Key, p. 123. 


23. In baptism the catechumens pass naked into the middle of 
the water on their knees; but beside this immersion it was neces- 
sary to pour three handfuls of water over the head. 

See the Key, p. 97. 

24. Exorcism of the catechumen is performed by the elect one 
before baptism. 

See the Key, pp. 92, 97. 


25. The sponsors in the infant baptism of the heretics (i.e. the 
orthodox) churches are at best mere false witnesses. 
See the Key, p. 88. 


26. There is but a single grade of ecclesiastical authority, and 
this is that of the elect one. He bears the authority to bind and 
loose given by the Father to Jesus in the descent of the Holy 
Spirit in Jordan, handed on by Jesus to the apostles and by them 
to their successors. 

See p. 105 of the Δεν. The historian Kirakos relates (p. 114) that ‘a bishop, 
Khosroy by name, during the catholicate of Anania Mokatzi (c. 950), taught 
that it is not right to submit to the archbishop, that is to the catholicos; for 
that he is in no wise superior (to other priests) except in his bare name and 
title. The Paulician tenet of a single grade of spiritual authority underlay 
such teaching. Cp. Paul of Taron, p. 176. 

27. But although all authority is one and the same, the elect 
depositary of it may have various titles; and according to the 
particular function he is fulfilling he is called in the Key, priest, 
elder, bishop, doctor or vardapel, president or hegumenos, apostle, 
and chief. 


See the Key, p. 105. Arist. p. 138, testifies to the order of Vardapet among 
the Paulicians; Greg. Mag. pp. 143, 155, to their priesthood and hegumenate. 
Cp. especially p. 149: ‘ They have appropriated to themselves the language 


and false signs of priesthood.’ 

27. The word used to denote authority is zshkhan-uthiun. 
Hence it is probable that the zshAhang, or rulers who choose out 
and present to the bishop a candidate for election, and in conjunc- 
tion with the bishop lay hands on him in ordination, were them- 
selves elect ones. 

See the Aey, chap. xxii. 


27. The presbyters and arch-presbyter mentioned in the ordinal 
or Service of Election seem to be identical with these zshkhang, or 


ELECTION] “CANON*OF N: TT. MONKS © xxxix 


rulers. They seem to have the same duty of testing, choosing, 
and presenting before the bishop the candidate for election. On 
p. 108 the parties present at that service are summed up thus: 
‘The bishop, the newly-elected one, the rulers, archrulers, and 
congregation.’ A little before we read that the presbyters and 
arch-presbyters bring up the candidate to the bishop and pray him 
to ordain. It would seem then that the rulers and presbyters are 
the same people. 


See the Aey, chap. xxii. Greg. Mag. p. 149, mentions their presbyters. 


28. There is no trace of Docetism in the Key, nor any denial of 
the real character of the Passion. Christ’s sufferings indeed are 
declared to have been insupportable. 

See the Aey, p. 108. The Armenian writers do not accuse the Paulicians of 
Docetism. 

29. The office of Reader is mentioned. In the Ordination 
Service he is the candidate for election. 


See the Key, p. 106. 


30. There is no rejection of the Epistles of Peter, nor is any 
disrespect shown to that apostle. It is merely affirmed, p. 93, that 
the Church does not rest on him alone, but on all the apostles, 
including Paul. In the Election Service, p. 107, the bishop formally 
confers upon the candidate the ritual name of Peter, in token of 
the authority to loose and bind now bestowed on him. There was 
a similar ritual among the Cathars of France. 

See the Key, chap. [xxii]. = 

31. Sacrifices of animals (to expiate the sins of the dead) are 
condemned as contrary to Christ’s teaching. 

See the ΑΨ, p. 115; cp. Greg. Nar. p. 127: “1 know too of their railing and 
cavilling at the first fruits,’ &c. Also Arist. p. 134, and note. 

32. New-born children have neither original nor operative sin, 
and do not therefore need to be baptized. 

See the Catechism, p. 118. 


33. A strong prejudice against monks animates the Δεν. The 
devil’s favourite disguise is that of a monk. 

See the Aey, chaps. viii, ix; and the Catechism, p. 122; and cp. Arist- 
pp- 136, 137. This writer’s account confirms the enmity of the orthodox monks 
to the Paulicians. 

34. The scriptures and a knowledge of divine truth are not to 
remain the exclusive possession of the orthodox priests. 

See the Aey, pp. 71-73. 


xl THE KEY OF) ΕΠ 


35. Rejection of the Logos doctrine as developed in the other 
Churches. There is indeed no explicit rejection of it in the Key, 
but it is ignored, and the doctrine that Jesus Christ is a κτίσμα, a 
man and not God, leaves no room for it in the Paulician theology. 


See the Key, p. 114; and cp. Greg. Mag. p. 147: ‘ They make no confession 
at all except of what is repugnant to all Christian ordinances and beliefs.’ 


36. For the same reason they must have rejected the term 


θεοτόκος. 


See the Key, p. 114. 


37. The elect one was an anointed one, a Christ, and the ordinal 
is a ritual for the election and anointing of a presbyter in the same 
way as Jesus was elected and anointed, namely by the Holy Spirit. 

See the Key, p. 95, the words beginning : ‘ Now therefore it is necessary,’ &c. 
Also p. 40, the passage beginning : ‘ And then the elect one,’ &c.; and p. 102; 
beginning : ‘Behold them,’ &c. Compare Greg. Nar. p. 127: ‘of their self- 
conferred contemptible priesthood, which is a likening of themselves to Satan.’ 
We may note that in the Key itself the elect one is not declared to be a Christ 
in the same trenchant terms which Gregory of Narek uses in levelling his accu- 
sations. Greg. Mag. also testifies to their ordinations, as in the phrases on 
p- 144: ‘ their outlandish choice (or election) by consent ’,.. ‘their strange and 
horrible and loathsome assumption of sufferings; of their priest-making with- 
out high priest’... ‘their worthless ordinations with nothing at all’ 


In addition to the Armenian writers, whose testimony we have 
adduced, there are the Greek writers who enumerate the Paulician 
tenets. They all used in turn an older document, namely, the 
description of the Paulicians inserted in the Codex Scorialensvs, 
I. Φ. 1. of the Chronicle of Georgius Monachus' by some later 
editor of that chronicle. This document is the nucleus of the 
accounts of them given by Photius (c. 820-c. 891), Contra 
Manicheos, liber i. §§ 1-10, and by Petrus Siculus, a contemporary 
of Photius. It was then used by Petrus Hegumenos, by Zigabenus 
(c. 1081-1118), by Pseudo-Photius, liber i. 10-iv. Each of these 
writers, no matter what his pretensions to originality, embodies 
this document in his account of the Paulicians, and adds 
to it details from other sources. Among these additions the 
citations of the Epistles of Sergius interest us most for our present 


1 To this source I allude as Scor. 

2 This document has been edited with commentary by J. Friedrich in the 
Sitzungsberichte der Philos.-Philol. Classe der k. ὁ. Akademie der Wissenschaften 
zu Miinchen, 1896, Heft i, under the title: ‘ Der urspriingliche bei Georgios 
Monachos nur theilweise erhaltene Bericht iiber die Paulikianer.’ I cannot 
exaggerate my indebtedness to the editor of it. 


ITS AGREEMENT WITH GREEK SOURCES _ xli 


purpose, which is to adduce from them /es/imonza to these thirty- 
seven tenets or principles of practice of the Paulician Church. 
I shall also add some testimonies from Genesios’ chronicle, and 
from Gregory of Asbesta in Sicily in his life of the Patriarch 
Methodius. For both these writers describe a sect of Selikiani 
in Constantinople, under the Empress Theodora, which was clearly 
Paulician. John of Damascus also contributes a few particulars to 
our knowledge of the Paulician Church. 

1. Scor. Xi: καὶ καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὰ ἑαυτῶν συνέδρια. 

4. Scor. xiv: ὁμοίως μὲν καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ λοιποὺς ἱερεῖς τοὺς 
παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀποβάλλονται. Because they were not really baptized. So 
also Scor. vit καλοῦσι δὲ ἑαυτοὺς μὲν Χριστιανούς, ἡμᾶς δὲ Ῥωμαίους. 
So Phot. 24 B. The reason is hinted at by Photius, 29 A: οὐ μὴν 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σωτήριον διαπτύοντες βάπτισμα, ὑποπλάττονται παραδέχεσθαι 
αὐτό, τὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ῥήματα τῇ τοῦ βαπτίσματος φωνῇ ὑποβάλλοντες. 
Καὶ γάρ φασιν" Ὁ κύριος ἔφη" ᾿Εγώ εἰμι τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν. Anna Comn. 
Alexias, xiv. 8, 9 (ii. 299, ed. Bonn), relates that many of the 
Paulicians of Philippopolis were baptized (rod θείου μετέσχον βαπτίσ- 
ματος) in consequence of the joint crusade of arms and arguments 
directed against them by the emperor Alexius, c. 1116. The true 
significance also of the libellous anecdote told by orthodox writers, 
especially John of Damascus, of Constantine Copronymus, is 
revealed through the Key. The story was that, when as an infant 
he was baptized, he fouled with his excrement the water of the 
font. In other words, he was, as a Paulician, opposed to paedo- 
baptism. 

8. Scor. XX. p. 76: πρόσθες πάλιν" καὶ τίς ἦν ὁ κατελθὼν πρὸ τοῦ 
κατελθεῖν, ἄγγελος ἤ τι ἕτερον καὶ πῶς τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔλαβε κλῆσιν; καὶ τὰ 
λοιπά, ἅπερ ἀνωτέρω γέγραπται, ἤγουν τὸ προσκληθῆναι αὐτὸν παρὰ τοῦ 
θεοῦ, τὸ τὴν ἐντολὴν δέξασθαι καὶ τἄλλα. Καὶ ὁμολογήσει, ὡς ἄγγελος ἦν 
καὶ διηκόνησε τῇ ἐντολῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κατὰ χάριν τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ κλῆσιν καὶ 
τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἴληφε... . .. Τί δέ, ὦ Μανιχαῖε. ἐπειδή σοι ἐξ ἀγγέλων ὁ 
υἱὸς γεγένηται καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων αὐτῶν μεταγενέστερος ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿᾽Οκταβίου 
Καίσαρος εἰληφὼς ὡς φὴς τὴν υἱότητα. 

9. Scor. XxX. p. 76: καὶ οὐ μόνον κτίσμα τοῦτον ἐπικαλεῖς κατὰ τὸν 
ματαιόφρονα ”Apewov, So the Paulician Selix or Lizix, secretary of 
the empress Theodora, called Jesus Christ a creature: καὶ θεὸν 
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ὀνομάζων κτίσμα, according to Genesios 0 
Pet. Sic. (sermo ii. adv. Manich. 71, 1338 D): εἰ δὲ μὴ τὸν υἱὸν 


1 Migne, Patr. Gr. 140, 284, in Nicetas Chron., who cites a life of Methodius, 
patriarch of C. P., by Gregory, archbishop of Sicily. 


xlii THE KEY OF TRUGH 


αὐτῆς (Μαρίας) ddnOj θεὸν ὁμολογεῖτε, πῶς τὴν τῆς σαρκώσεως αὐτοῦ 
μητέρα τιμήσοιτε; 

12. Scor. vi: λέγουσι δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας αὐτοὺς προθύμως" 
πιστεύομεν εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸν ἐπουράνιον πατέρα. 
So Phot. (24 B). 

13. Scor, xxi: τὰς δὲ eis τὴν ἀεὶ παρθένον καὶ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς 
θεοτόκον Μαρίαν βλασφημίας ὑμῶν. .. οὐδὲ ἡ γλῶσσα ἡμῶν ἐκφῆναι 
δύναται... ἐπιτιθέναι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ' ῥητοῦ τοῦ φάσκοντος" 
ἀπηγγέλη τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [cov] ἑστήκασιν κιτιλ. 
. . « λέγοντες, εἰ διὰ φροντίδος ταύτην ἐτίθει, προσυπήντησεν ἂν αὐτῇ ..... 
καὶ ὅτι ἐφρόντιζε (sc. Jesus) ταύτης (sc. Mariam) δείκνυσι πάλιν τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον. So Phot. (25 A), who adds the following tenet: τὴν 
ἄσπιλον καὶ καθαρὰν παρθένον μετὰ τὸν σωτήριον τόκον ἑτέρους υἱοὺς ἐκ 
τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ παιδοποιῆσαι. So Gregory of Sicily? says of Lizix: τὴν 
πάναγνον . . μητέρα θεοτόκον οὐκ ἔλεγε. 

14. Scor. X: τοὺς προφήτας καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἁγίους ἀποβάλλονται, 
ἐξ αὐτῶν μηδένα τινα ἐν μέρει τῶν σωζομένων εἶναι λέγοντες. So Photius 
(68 A) records that the Paulician woman who converted Sergius 
warned him that the ‘sons of the kingdom to be cast out into outer 
darkness’ (Matt. viii. 12) are no other than the saints: obs σύ τε καὶ 
οἱ κατά σε ἁγίους καλοῦσι καὶ νομίζουσι. .. ois Kal προσάγειν διεγνώκατε 
σέβας, τὸν μόνον ζῶντα καὶ ἀθάνατον καταλιπόντες θεόν. According to 
Joan. Damasc. adv. Constant. Cabalinum *, Copronymus, who was 
almost openly a Paulician, denied that the Virgin can help us after 
death (pera θάνατον αὐτὴν βοηθεῖν μὴ δυναμένην), or that the apostles 
and martyrs could intercede for us (πρεσβείαν μὴ κεκτημένους, μόνους 
ἑαυτοὺς ὠφελήσαντας διὰ τὰ πάθη, ἅπερ ὑπέστησαν, καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν 
ψυχὰς ἐκ τῆς κολάσεως διασώσαντας" ἐπεὶ τοὺς προσκαλουμένους αὐτοὺς 
ἢ προστρέχοντας, μηδὲν ὠφελοῦντας). 

16. Scor. ix: βλασφημοῦσι δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸν τίμιον σταυρόν, λέγοντες, ὅτι 
σταυρὸς ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν᾽ οὐ χρὴ δὲ προσκυνεῖσθαι τὸ ξύλον ὡς κατηραμένον 
ὄργανον. So Phot. (25 C) who adds, as the reason given by Paulicians 
why Christ is the Cross, the following: καὶ yap αὐτός, φασίν, εἰς 
σταυροῦ σχῆμα τὰς χεῖρας ἐξήπλωσε. Photius also (32 A) remarks 
that the Paulicians were ready to kiss the Evangel, but avoided 
kissing that part of the cover, ἔνθα τοῦ τιμίου σταυροῦ ὁ τύπος 
διακεχάρακται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ λοιπῷ τοῦ βιβλίου μέρει, ἐν @ τὸ ἀπεικόνισμα 
τοῦ σταυροῦ μὴ διασημαίνετα. Pet. Sic. bears similar testimony, 


ch. vii: of τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (τοῦ σταυροῦ) διαρνούμενοι καὶ μὴ προσ- 


1 Luke viii. 20, 21. 2 See note on No. 9. 
3 Migne, Patr. Gr. 95, 337- 


PHOTIUS, PETRUS SICULUS, GEORGIUS xliii 


κυνοῦντες αὐτὸν ἀδιστάκτῳ πίστε. And Greg. of Sicily’ of Lizix: 
τὸν προσκυνητὸν σταυρὸν μωρίαν ἡγεῖτο. 

17. See on ΝΟ. 14. 

20. Scor. xv: ἔχουσι δὲ πάντα τὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου 
ῥητὰ διάστροφα (? ddidorpopa). So in xxi the writer appeals to the 
canonical New Testament as recognized by the Paulicians: ἀπὸ 
yap τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ὑμῖν προσδιαλέγομαι, Tas ἄλλας μὴ 
παραδεχόμενος γραφάς, that is the four gospels and epistles. So in ii 
we have express testimony that Constantine Silvanus, though he 
did not embody his heresies in writing for his converts, yet gave 
them τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον ἐγγράφως, ἀπαράλλακτα μὲν τῇ 
γραφῇ καὶ τοῖς λόγοις ὡς καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ὄντα παραδούς... νομοθετήσας 
αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦτο" μὴ δεῖν ἑτέραν βίβλον τὴν οἱανοῦν ἀναγινώσκειν, εἰ μὴ τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον. 

Photius (28 C) alleges that they received all the New Testament 
except the Epistles of Peter: οἱ αὐτά τε ra κυριακὰ λόγια καὶ τὰ 
ἀποστολικὰ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας γραφάς, φημὶ δὴ τάς τε πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων 
καὶ τὰς καθολικὰς λεγομένας, πλὴν τῶν ἀναφερομένων εἰς τὸν κορυφαῖον" 
ἐκείνας γὰρ οὐδὲ τοῖς ῥήμασι παραδέχονται. Pet. Sic. (p. 14) and 
Photius (28 A) allege that they rejected the Old Testament and 
the Prophets. Pet. Sic. testifies to their reliance in argument on 
the New Testament: ξένα twa καὶ ἀλλόκοτα ἐπιφημίζοντας προβλήματα, 
ὡς δῆθεν τοῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου λόγοις ἐπερειδόμενοι. 

21. Photius (29 B) admits that the Paulicians recognized the 
Eucharistic Sacrament, and received it, but only to deceive the 
simple-minded. Ναὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας εἰσὶν αὐτῶν οὐκ ὀλίγοι τοῦ 
τιμίου σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. ᾿Αλλὰ τοῦτο πρὸς 
ἐξαπάτην τῶν ἁπλουστέρων μεταλαμβάνουσιν. Gregory of Sicily * 
indicates that they contemned the eucharist of the orthodox, for 
Lizix ἐγέλα... τὴν τῶν φρικτῶν καὶ θείων μυστηρίων μετάληψιν. 

30. Scor.x: ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἅγιον Πέτρον, τὸν μέγαν πρωταπόστολον, 
πλέον πάντων καὶ δυσφημοῦσι καὶ ἀποστρέφονται, ἀρνητὴν ἀποκαλοῦντες 
αὐτόν. Καὶ τὴν μετάνοιαν καὶ τὰ πικρὰ αὐτοῦ δάκρυα οὐ προσδέχονται οἱ 
Παμμίαρο. And see on No. 20 with regard to their rejection 
(alleged by Photius) of Peter’s epistles. 

33. Scor. x: καὶ διδάσκουσιν of ὄντως ἐσκοτισμένοι παρὰ τοῦ διαβόλου 
ὑποδειχθῆναι τὸ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δι’ ἀγγέλου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποδειχθὲν καὶ 
δοθὲν ἅγιον σχῆμα, ὅπερ οἱ μοναχοὶ ἐνδεδύμεθα. 

34. Photius (64 D) relates how Sergius was converted by a Pauli- 
cian woman. She asked him: ‘Why do you not read the divine 


1 See note on No. 9. 


xliv THE KEY “OF TRUTH 


Gospels?’ He replied that only the priests and not the laity might 
do so. Her answer was that God respects not persons, but desires 
that all be saved and brought to a knowledge of the truth; that it 
was a μηχανὴ καὶ σόφισμα τῶν λεγομένων ἱερέων, Who desired to traffic 
in the word of God and deprive the people of their share in the 
mysteries contained in the Gospels. ‘This is why they prevented 
the people from reading them. The teaching of the Aey is, how- 
ever, less explicit on this point than this passage of Photius would 
lead us to expect. 

This detailed agreement of Zhe Key of Truth, on the one hand 
with the Armenian writers of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and 
on the other hand with the Greek notices of an earlier date, is 
proof enough that in it we have recovered an early and authorita- 
tive exposition of Paulician tenets. And it is remarkable that the 
Escurial fragment which is the earliest form of the common docu- 
ment used by the Greek writers is also in the closest accord with 
the Aey. For it alone records that the Paulicians regarded Jesus 
Christ not as God, but as a κτίσμα or mere creature of God; it alone, 
that they taught that Jesus was chosen Son of God and Christ κατὰ 
χάριν, in reward for his complete fulfilment of the divine command. 
On this point J. Friedrich, the editor of this fragment, has justly 
written as follows: ‘...der Auszug des Petros Hegumenos und der 
gedruckten Chronik des Georgios Monachos sowie die Ueber- 
arbeitung derselben, welcher unter dem Namen des Photius geht, 
diesen Punkt ganz unerwahnt lassen, so dass es scheinen konnte, 
die Paulikianer lehrten tiber Christus, seine irdische Geburt ausge- 
nommen, ganz orthodox.’ 

Nevertheless, there are ascribed to the Paulicians in both sets of 
sources opinions of which we find little or no hint in the Key. 
First among these is a Manichean dualism according to which the 
visible universe was created by the devil. 

Now firstly the ey, p. 48, asserts just the contrary. In it Satan 
is indeed frequently alluded to as the adversary of God himself, 
and the latter is usually characterized as the heavenly God or God 
in heaven. But there is no indication that the Paulicians went 
beyond the well-marked dualism of the New Testament itself, 
according to which (John xii. 31 and xiv. 30) Satan is the ruler of 
this world, or even, as Paul expressed it (2 Cor. iv. 4), the God 
of this world. The morbid anxiety of Augustine’ and of the 

‘ It was pretended that St. Paul’s meaning was as follows : ‘God has blinded 
the minds of the faithless of this age’ by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Augus- 
tine, Jerome, and in fact by nearly all the orthodox fathers. 


PAULICIANS NOT MANICHEANS xlv 


fathers both before and after him to discount the force of these 
texts in their confutations of Marcion and of the Manicheans, 
raises the suspicion that the latter merely rested their dualism upon 
St. Paul and the fourth Gospel. In their confutations of heretics 
the orthodox fathers were not too scrupulous of the truth. They 
all carried in their bag two weights, a heavier and a lighter, and in 
their dealings with so-called heretics used the latter. 

Secondly, Photius and other Greek writers, as well as Gregory 
Magistros, attest that the Paulicians rejected and anathematized 
Manes: Mdvevra μὲν καὶ Παῦλον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην (two Armenian disciples 
of Manes), καὶ rods ἄλλους προθύμως ἀναθεματίζουσιν. It is evident 
therefore that the name ‘ New Manicheans,’ given by the orthodox 
Greek and Armenian writers to the Paulicians, was (as J. Friedrich 
charitably puts it) a bit of schematism. Manichean was in those 
ages a general term of abuse for all schismatics alike; and was 
applied by Photius and his contemporaries no less to the Latins 
(because they affirmed the double procession of the Holy Ghost) 
than to the Paulicians. 

With like perfidy the theologians of the fifth century, Augustine 
(Epist. 165) and Pope Leo the Great (Epist. 15), had already 
striven to blacken the Priscillianists by identifying them with the 
Manicheans; and their identification was accepted almost till 
yesterday, when a lucky chance led to the discovery by G. Schepss 
of some authentic writings of Priscillian himself, in which we read 
as follows!: ‘Anathema sit qui Manetem et opera eius doctrinas 
adque instituta non damnat; cuius peculiariter turpitudines perse- 
quentes gladio, si fieri posset, ad inferos mitteremus ac si quid est 
deterius gehennae tormentoque peruigili. The tone of this 
fanatical Spaniard’s reference to Manes forbids us indeed to lament 
the fate which befel him, yet in no way acquits Augustine and Leo 
of the charge of bearing false witness. 

We should therefore attach no weight to the charge against the 
Paulicians, that they ascribed to Satan the creation of the visible 
world. It probably arose out of their rejection of the orthodox 
doctrine according to which Christ the eternal Word of God 
created all things. In the Escurial fragment published by J. 
Friedrich, § vi, this is almost implied, for we read in it of the 
Paulicians as follows: λέγουσι δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας αὐτοὺς προθύμως" 
πιστεύομεν εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸν ἐπουράνιον πατέρα, καὶ 


Ds WE, \ a \ 4 , ΄ [ \ « lol 
ἀνάθεμα φησὶ τῷ μὴ οὕτως πιστεύοντι, μεμελετημένως λίαν THY ἑαυτῶν 


1 Priscilliani op. edit. Georg. Schepss, Vindob, 1580, p. 22. 13. 


xlvi THE KEY, OF DRUTH 


κακίαν μεθοδεύοντες" ov γὰρ προστιθέασι, ὅτε λέγουσι τὸν πατέρα τὸν 
ἐπουράνιον, ὅτι τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν 
γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς" χρὴ δὲ τὸν προσδιαλεγόμενον ὀρθόδοξον αἰτεῖν 
τὸν Μανιχαῖον τοῦ εἰπεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ συμβόλου τῆς ἀμωμήτου ἡμῶν 
πίστεως καὶ τὸ St οὗ τὰ πάντα, ὅπερ λέγειν ὅλως οὐ δύνανται' ἀνατιθέασι 
γὰρ οἱ ματαιόφρονες τὴν κτίσιν παντὸς τοῦ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου τούτου... 
ἤγουν τῷ διαβόλῳ. τὸν δὲ θεόν φησιν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς εἶναι. Here the 
words in heavier type are from Johni. 3, and suggest that the 
Paulician answer really was this, that God the Father, and not 
the Word of God, made heaven and earth and all things in them. 
Such an answer those who deified Jesus and substituted for the 
formula ‘the Son of God’ the formula ‘God the Son,’ would 
naturally pervert into this: that the devil made all things. At the 
same time the Paulicians, being averse to the falsification of scrip- 
ture, must, like the church of an earlier age, have accepted in their 
plain and obvious sense such texts as John xii. 31 and xiv. 30, and 
2 Cor. iv. 4. And the evil treatment they underwent fully justified 
them in their belief that Satan was responsible for the existing 
order of things, in particular for the administration of the Roman 
Empire. 

It was also alleged that the Paulicians denied Christ to have 
taken flesh of the Virgin (ἐξ αὐτῆς σαρκωθῆναι τὸν κύριον); and Photius 
(25 B) adds that they held him to have passed through her body 
into the world as through a conduit-pipe (as διὰ σωλῆνος διεληλυθέναι). 
It is possible that if we had in its entirety the chapter of the Key 
‘On the Creation of Adam and of our Lord,’ we should find that 
it did teach this very ancient tenet; for it is one which in no way 
conflicts with the belief that Christ was κτίσμα θεοῦ and not θεός, and 
which coheres closely with the teaching that Jesus Christ was the 
new Adam. ‘The survival of this tenet among the Anabaptists of 
a later age (who seem to have been the Paulician Church trans- 
ferred to Western Europe) also makes it very probable that 
Paulicians may have held it. But here we are in the realm of 
mere surmise, for we do not find the idea in so much as survives to 
us of Zhe Key of Truth. We recur to the point below (p. clxxxvii). 

Another tenet ascribed to the Paulicians was this, that the Virgin 
Mary was an allegory of the ‘ heavenly Jerusalem, into which Christ 
has entered as our precursor and in our behalf*.’ Such teaching 
was not heretical ; and that the Paulicians did not substitute this 
allegory for the actual belief that Jesus was born of the Virgin is 


τ Scor. vii: τὴν ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐν ἣ πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθε Χριστός. 


THEIR PRIESTHOOD AND SACRAMENTS — xlvii 


certain. The Xey attests that they held the belief, and Photius 
and Petrus Siculus allege as much. That they also indulged in 
this colourless bit of allegory is likely enough. For we find it 
among the orthodox Armenians of the region of Mananali, into 
whose hymn Aristaces’, their eulogist, introduces it. We also meet 
_with it in Adamantius (dial. C. Marc.) and other orthodox writings, 
as well as among the Manicheans and Albigenses. 

In § viii of Scor. we read that the Paulicians blasphemed the 
divine mysteries of the holy communion of the body and blood, 
and declared that the Lord meaned not that they were to consume 
bread and wine when he said: ‘Take ye, eat and drink,’ to his 
apostles, but only gave them his words, ῥήματα. It accords with 
the closing words of the Catechism in the Aey to suppose that they 
did attach such a figurative or mystical value as is here implied to 
the eucharistic meal; and that is all that Scor. § viii implies. It 
does not allege that they discarded the actual meal of bread and 
wine. The only sacraments against which they really blasphemed 
were those of the Greeks, Latins, and Armenians, for these were from 
their standpoint no sacraments at all, but only profane mummery. 

And here we have the explanation of such statements as that of 
Aristaces*, that the Paulicians utterly rejected church and church 
ordinances, baptism, the mass, the cross, and fasts. They neces- 
sarily rejected the ordinances of churches which, having wilfully 
corrupted the institution of baptism in its evangelical, primitive, 
and only genuine form, as they regarded it, had also lost their 
orders and sacraments and apostolical tradition. But they them- 
selves, in repudiating the innovation of infant baptism, had kept all 
these things, and so formed the only true Church, and were the 
only real Christians left in the world. This is the significance of 
such utterances as this of Aristaces. Failure to comprehend it was 
natural enough in the absence of the fuller knowledge of Paulician 
tenets which the Aey affords us. Such utterances, however, have 
led inquirers, e.g. the Archdeacon Karapet Ter Mkrttschian’, to 
suppose that the Paulicians really discarded baptism, sacraments, 
and sacerdotal system ; and that, ‘following Marcion’s example, 
they set up a purely spiritual church. There is, as J. Friedrich 
rightly observes, no ground for saying that Marcion aimed at 
a spiritual church in this sense of detachment from outward cere- 
monies and observances. 


1 See p. 139. 2 See p. 140. 
3 Die Paulikianer, Leipzig, 1893, p. 109. 


xlvili THE KEY ‘OF ΤΕ 


But the Archdeacon Karapet is certainly right when, in the 
same context, he observes, a little inconsistently, that the Paulicians 
were not and did not claim to be reformers of the Greek church: 
‘Wahrlich, wundersam wire es, wenn in einigen ein paar hundert 
Meilen von Byzantinien entfernten Gebirgsdérfern am Euphrat der 
Gedanke auftauchen sollte, die griechische Kirche zu reformieren.’ 
The idea of a church without priests and sacraments, of a mysticism 
wherein the individual soul communes direct with God without 
such supports, was assuredly alien to the dark ages in which the 
Paulicians flourished, and was barely possible in any age before 
our own. Like most other heresies that in old times ramified far 
and wide, that of the Paulicians arose out of religious conservatism. 
They were ‘old believers’: not innovators, but enemies of Catholic 
innovations, of infant baptism, of the fourth century Christology, of 
all the circle of ideas summed up in the words ὁμοούσιος, θεοτόκος and 
ἀειπάρθενος, οἵ images and pictures, of intercession of saints, of 
purgatory, of papal pretensions, of nearly everything later than 
Tertullian’s age. They did not. desire new things, but only to 
keep what they had got; and that, as we shall point out later on, 
was peculiarly primitive. They did not sit loose to priests and 
sacraments. If they erred at all, it was by making too much of 
them. 

It is an irreparable loss that the sacramentary which the copyist 
of the Aey of the year 1782 transcribed along with it has not been 
preserved; and we can only hope that the same tenacity of the 
Armenian race which has kept alive this ancient Church down into 
our own generation may yet be accountable for its being found. 
It might prove to be the most ancient in form of all the Christian 
liturgies. The catechism with which the Aey concludes is later 
than the first twenty-two chapters’, but the information it gives 
about the Paulician Eucharist doubtless represents the teaching of 
the Church. The acts of the inquisition of 1837-1845 also in 
some slight measure help to fill up the gap; for they contain the 
following description of their eucharist. It was sent on May 23, 
1841, to the consistory of Erivan by the orthodox priest of 
Arkhwéli :— 

‘The villagers of Arkhwéli, before they were corrected, baptized 
and communicated one another according to the direction of 


1 Cp. p. 1. From the statements of the Paulicians, from whom the book 
was seized, it is clear that the Ay itself only comprises the first twenty-two 
chapters of the book. 


ΠΕ WERE OLD BELIEVERS xlix 


The Key of Truth, their heretical book, after the erroneous manner of 
the Thonraki. These wicked practices were twice committed by them 
at that time under cover of darkness ; once in the stable of the choir- 
singer (or church-assistant) T6n6é Kirakosean, and on the other 
occasion in the inner chamber of Souwar Hovhannesean, in the 
following fashion. They meet and get ready water in a vessel, and 
upon a common table of wood they lay a single unleavened common 
loaf of small size, baked in an oven, and in a common vessel wine 
without water. Over the loaf they say: “Take ye, eat. This is 
the body of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Over the wine they say: 
“This is the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The person to 
be baptized comes bare-headed before the baptist without stripping 
off of raiment’; then the baptist took and poured a handful of 
water over the head of the person to be baptized. At the first time 
of so pouring it he says, ‘‘ In the name of the Father”’; at the second, 
“and of the Son”; at the third, “and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” 
After that the person baptized first receives in his hands a portion 
of the bread, and eats it, and then drinks a little of the wine, and 
goes away.’ 

These depositions, which are signed by various of the persons 
concerned, also give the names and ages of four persons who were 
thus baptized or communicated in an heretical way. Souwar 
Hovhannesean was eighty years of age; his wife Mary was sixty ; 
Aslan Hovhannesean was eighty; and Martoj Hovhannesean was 
eighty-five, since dead. These four persons had been baptized in 
the manner described thirty years before (therefore they were now 
only communicated) by the false priest (/#. lord) Hovhannes?, 
a follower of the Thonraki cult, who subsequently became a 
Mohammedan. 

The -choir-singer Tén6d Kirakosean, now fifty years of age, 
had been baptized in the time of the same priest (i.e. Hovhannes) 
by Meser Putalean, a disciple of the false priest. 

Then follow the names of six persons, who were only baptized 
and not communicated, in Tén6d Kirakosean’s stable; their ages 
were respectively forty, forty-five, thirty-five, thirty, fifty, fifty. On 
the second occasion, in the chamber of Souwar Hovhannesean, 


* This was a concession to the age and climate; for the Key, p.97, prescribes 
that they shall be stripped after the primitive Christian manner. 

? This person was the copyist of Zhe Key of Truth in 1782. See below, 
p- Ixxii. The book actually consists of twenty-two chapters, but the numeration 
only extends as far as chap. xxi. Hence the statement that it was written in 
twenty-one chapters. The Catechism was not regarded as part of the Azy. 


d 


] THE KEY OF TRUTH 


five persons were baptized in the manner described by Souwar, 
who had been baptized by the choir-singer, George Sargsean. 
I need not trouble the reader with their names, but their respective 
ages were forty-five, forty, thirty, thirty, thirty-five years. These 
depositions conclude with the notice that ‘all these heretical 
proceedings were written in twenty-one chapters in the book called 
The Key of Truth, which at first the offenders said they had torn up 
and burned, though, after repenting, they admitted they had not 
done so. 

The copy of Zhe Key of Truth here printed is the particular one 
here referred to, and we are therefore entitled to fill up its lacunae 
from these depositions, and from the confessions given above. As 
to the Eucharist we learn that it was celebrated after nightfall. 
This may have been only to protect themselves, but it is more 
probable that it was in strict following of the account preserved in 
the Gospels of the institution of the Eucharist, according to which 
it was a supper or evening meal, and not a morning celebration. 
The only communicants were four persons baptized thirty years 
before, and now averaging in age over seventy-six years each; and 
the youngest of them, a woman of sixty, was the wife of a man of 
eighty. ‘T6n6 Kirakosean, although a man of fifty, and baptized 
some twenty years before, did not communicate. We are tempted 
to infer that the participation in the eucharistic meal was, like the 
hereticatio of the Albigeois, deferred to extreme old age; but the © 
indications are too slight to build so much upon, nor was the 
hereticatio the same thing as the Eucharist. We can, however, infer 
something about the age at which baptism was conferred. Its 
recipients ranged from thirty to fifty years. Making allowance for 
the fact that in Arkhwéli and Giumri (Alexandrapol) the new sect 
had only been disseminated since about the year 1828, and that 
these may have been for the most part new converts; still it would 
appear that baptism was deferred, as in the orthodox Church of the 
third and fourth century, until the catechumens were of a very 
mature age indeed; in no case less than thirty years. 

The archives of the consistory of Erivan record two other cases 
of open-air baptism in a stream at mid-day in the neighbourhood of 
Alexandrapol. In the second of these cases a priest named Sahak 
was baptizing two men whose ages are not given, when a young 
man of twenty-three, named Sargis Harouthiun (who afterwards 
joined the sect), startled him by suddenly appearing on the scene. 
The priest instantly invited him also to be baptized in these words: 


EPISDLES, OF SSERGIUS li 


‘Come and be justified by this baptism, that you may not die in 
your sins.’ 

We next must attempt to solve a difficult and delicate problem, 
this namely: What significance did the Paulicians really attach 
to their orders, and to election, as they termed their form of 
ordination? Gregory of Narek brings against them the charge of 
anthropolatry. Their founder Smbat, he says, claimed to be 
Christ; and he relates with zest the ribald story of the khalif who, 
in putting him to death, offered to believe that he was Christ if he 
would rise again, not after three, but after thirty days. Our earliest 
Greek document, Scor., brings indeed no similar charge against the 
Paulicians, but we meet with it in Photius and Petrus Siculus. 
Photius, for example (Contra Manichaeos, i. § 21), alleges that 
Sergius, the great Paulician leader of the first half of the ninth 
century, taught that he himself, and such of his followers as were 
fully initiated in the mysteries, and were no longer merely audztores 
(ακροαταῖ), were themselves the Holy Spirit. This may, of course, 
be no more than the commentary of malice on the rite of election 
as given in the Aey. But both Photius and Petrus Siculus preserve 
the following passage from an epistle of Sergius: ‘Let no one 
deceive you in any way; but having these promises from God, be 
of good cheer. For we, being persuaded in our hearts, have 
written unto you, that I am the porter and the good shepherd and 
the leader of the body of Christ, and the light of the house of God, 
and I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. For 
even if I am away from you in the body, yet I am with you in 
spirit. For the rest fare ye well; perfect yourselves, and the God 
of peace shall be with you.’ To the same congregation in Colonia 
in Armenia, to which the above words were addressed, he writes 
also as follows, according to Petrus Siculus (Col. 41, 1296 A): 
‘Knowing beforehand the tried quality (τὸ δοκίμιον) of your faith, 
we remind you how that, as the churches that were aforetime 
received shepherds and teachers (and he signifies Constantine and 
the others), so also ye have received a shining lamp and a beaming 
star and a guide to salvation, according to the Scripture: “that if 
thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light .”’ 

These passages from the epistles of Sergius are strikingly similar 
to the exordium of Zhe Key of Truth. A common e¢hos connects 
them; such as would, except for the absence of corroborative 
evidence, entitle us to suppose that the same hand wrote the one 


1 Matt. vi. 22. 


d2 


li THRE KEY OF ΕΠ 


and the other. The author of the Key, like the writer’ of these 
epistles, has caught the tone of St. Paul. There is the same 
assurance of being the vehicle of the Holy Spirit, of being a 
missionary inspired and sent by God to teach the way, the truth, 
and the life. It is to be regretted that our fragments of Sergius’ 
epistles are so few and short ; they contain, however, one magnificent 
utterance, worthy of a Paul or of a Wesley: ‘I have run from east 
to west, and from north to south, preaching the gospel of Christ 
until my knees were weary?’ And also the following, to Leo 
a Montanist, which likewise has about it the ring of St. Paul: 
‘But do thou beware of thyself. Cease to rend asunder the true 
faith. For what charge canst thou bring against us? Have 
I despoiled any one, or been overweening? Thou canst not 
allege it. But if thou dost, Thy witness is not true. Yet 
be it not mine to hate thee, but only to exhort thee, as thou 
hast received apostles and prophets, who are four in number, 
so receive (our) shepherds and teachers, lest thou become the 
prey of wild beasts.’ Truly if this great teacher had faults, they 
were those of a St. Paul. 

There is a certain self-exaltation in these citations of Sergius, of 
which we have not the setting and context; yet not such as to 
warrant the charge of anthropolatry brought by Greg. Nar. and by 
the Greek writers. In the third of the recantations however, made 
in 1837, there is a curious passage. Gregory (one of the elect of 
the Thonraki) said: ‘Lo, Iam the cross: on my two hands light 
tapers, and give me adoration. For I am able to give you salva- 
tion, as much as the cross and the saints”.’ This singular utterance 
must mean that in some ceremony the elect one or priest spread 
out his hands, like Jesus on the cross; and received the adoration 
of the faithful, who lit their tapers on either hand. Here we begin 
to see why the Paulicians repudiated crosses of lifeless stone, and 
even broke them up when they could. They had living crosses of 
their own, elect ones who were baptized with the baptism of Christ, 
crucified on his cross, dead, and buried with him, rising again with 
him, called with his calling, reasonable images of God into whom 
Christ’s Spirit had been breathed, in whom he abode as they in him. 
It need not surprise us that they rejected the stocks and stones 
into which the Armenians of those ages (as of this) believed that the 
spirit and virtue of Christ could be magically introduced by the 
priest, just as a Brahman may be seen by any Indian roadside 


' Pet. Sic. § 36,1293 B. Also in Photius, 2 See above, p. xxvii. 


THE ELECT. AS BODY, OF ‘CHRIST liti 


putting the god into little clay images brought to him by the 
faithful, and made hollow on purpose. Surely it was a noble idea 
to restrict possession by the Holy Spirit to living images, and not 
extend it to stocks and stones. 

Such is the circle of ideas into which I believe we here enter, 
and perhaps we have a further trace of it at the end of the catechism 
which follows the Key. There we read that the false priests, when 
they took the elements and said, ‘This is my body and blood, 
turned them not into the body and blood of Christ, but into their 
own sinful body and blood. 

How are we to interpret this enigmatical statement, twice 
repeated? Not otherwise, I think, than by supposing that the 
elect priest was himself, through community of suffering’, and 
as possessed by the same Holy Spirit, in a mystical manner one 
with Christ; so that when he took the elements and said: ‘ These 
are my body and blood,’ they were by the Spirit of the heavenly 
Father changed into Christ’s body, because zs body was also 
Christ’s. On the other hand the false priest, not being of the body 
of Christ, by the use of the formula ‘This is my body,’ only 
converted the elements into his own sinful body, and not into 
Christ’s. The underlying supposition must certainly be this, that 
every elect one was Christ; and it is quite in harmony with this 
that in the Δεν the apostles and evangelists are spoken of as paris 
or members of the Church. From Petrus Siculus? we learn that 
the Paulician Church was the body of Christ. The words in which 
Sergius warns his flock of the dreadful nature of apostasy are these : 
ὁ πορνεύων eis τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. Ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν σῶμα Χριστοῦ" 
εἴ τις ἀφίσταται τῶν παραδόσεων τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τουτέστι τῶν 
ἐμῶν, ἁμαρτάνει: ὅτι προστρέχει τοῖς ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦσι, καὶ ἀπειθεῖ τοῖς 
ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις. Here ἡμεῖς means ‘we, the elect.’ 

A difficulty remains. In the Catechism on p. 123, in the chapter 
on the ‘ Holy-making of the body and blood of our Lord,’ we read 
that the Lord, desiring to distribute to disciples and believers his 
body and blood, began with figwres, whereby he opened their minds, 
saying: ‘ My body is the true meat, and my blood the true drink’ ; 
and, ‘I am the bread of life come down from heaven ; whoever 
eateth this bread shall live for ever.’ 

1 Perhaps the Marcionites had a similar idea of priesthood, and expressed it 


in their phrase: συνταλαίπωροι καὶ συμμισούμενοι (Tertul. c. Mare. iv. 9, 36), i.e. 
sharers with Jesus Christ (of with Marcion) of tribulations and of the world’s 


hatred. 
2 Hist. Man. § 39, 1300 A. 


liv tHE KEY OF “TRUTH 


Are we to infer that he only began with figures, but went on to 
really convert in the last supper the sawdstance of the bread and 
wine into his true body and blood? And that the words of institu- 
tion are to be taken literally, whereas the sayings with which he 
opened their minds were only figurative? If there be no real 
change of the elements, then what is meant by the saying that the 
false priests change the elements into their own bodies and not 
into Christ’s? 

The writer probably felt no difficulties, such as his statements 
raise in our minds. The ability to distinguish between an allegory 
and the facts allegorized, between a symbol and that which is 
symbolized, does not belong to every stage of culture. Philo some- 
times lacked it; the early Christians barely had it at all. Nor can 
we expect it to be very developed in the ninth and tenth centuries. 
It is possible, therefore, that the Paulicians entertained several ideas 
at once, not all compatible with each other: firstly, the idea that 
the Lord in saying, ‘ take, eat and drink, signified not real bread 
and wine, but his words, ῥήματα αὐτοῦ as Scor.* has it, λόγια κυριακά 
as Photius: secondly, the idea that the bread and wine really 
became the Lord’s body and blood: thirdly, the idea that, the 
elect ones being Christ’s body’, the elements in becoming their 
body, became his; and in becoming his, became theirs. And 
lastly it must be borne in mind that we are not suitably placed for 
judging of the question, because the Key has been wilfully 
mutilated just in the pages which would have revealed to us how 
the writer of it conceived of Christ’s flesh, He may have believed 
with Origen that Christ had an αἰθέριον σῶμα, and that he brought 
the same with him from heaven. Such a belief would have helped 
in his mind to obscure the issues so clear and hard to us; to 
veil the contradictions, to us so palpable. Or it may have been 
into the risen body of Jesus, which was only visible to the faithful, 
that the elements underwent a change. 

However this be, it is certain that the Paulicians believed their 
elect ones to be, so to speak, reincarnations of Christ, and set such 
an interpretation on texts like John vi. 56: ‘Whoever eats my 
body and drinks my blood, shall dwell in me and I in him.” Nor 
is it certain that this was not also a Pauline train of thought. It is 
difficult to attach any other meaning to such phrases as ‘ Not I, but 
Christ that dwelleth in me.” And in Gal. vi. 17, Paul writes: 
‘Henceforth let no man give me trouble; he persecuteth Christ 


1 Scor. viii. 2 Ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν σῶμα Χριστοῦ. 


ECKBERT ON THE CATHAR SACRAMENT lv 


For I bear the s//gmata of Jesus in my body.’ The words italicized 
were read in Marcion’s and probably in Tertullian’s text, and are 
necessary to the sense; which is this, that Paul was a symbol or 
image of Christ, so that whoever harmed him harmed Christ’. 
Later on we shall return to this subject. It is enough now to 
remark that we here border on a field of primitive ideas and 
beliefs for which the modern psychologist has devised the title of 
sympathetic magic. 

Later on I shall enumerate several points of contact between the 
European Cathars and the Paulicians. Here I must anticipate one 
of them. The Paulicians adored their elect ones as living repre- 
sentatives of Christ, shrines of his spirit which, in the sacred season 
of election, had chosen them as its vessels. Accordingly they 
adored them or prostrated themselves before them? and as their 
fiesh was Christ’s and they Christ’s body, it was the same whether 
you declared the change of the eucharistic elements to be into 
their body and blood or into Christ’s. The transubstantiation—if 
we may use a word which they did not—was not so much of the 
in themselves lifeless elements, as of the elect one who blessed 
and offered them ; and their change of nature was but a corollary 
of his. 

The heretics whom Eckbert found so widespread in the neigh- 
bourhood of Tréves and Cologne as early as A.D. 1160 held 
similar opinions. Of them Eckbert reports thus” :— 


‘ They altogether despise, and consider as of no value, the masses 
which are celebrated in the churches; for if it happens that they 
go with the rest of their neighbours to hear masses, or even to 
receive the Eucharist, they do this in mere dissimulation, lest their 
infidelity should be discovered. For they say that the order of the 
priesthood is altogether lost in the Church of Rome, and in all 
the churches of the Catholic faith, and the true priests are not to 
be found except in their sect. They believe that the body and 
blood of Christ can be by no means made by our consecration, or 
received by us in our communion; but they say that they alone 
make the body of Christ at their tables. But in those words there 


1 ΤΊ is a proof of the wide and early diffusion of the idea that in the C/emen- 
tine Homilies (ed. Dressel, 1853, p. 11), an anti-Pauline work, we have it 
expressed almost in the same words: δήσει γὰρ (6 ἐπίσκοπος) ὃ δεῖ δεθῆναι, καὶ 
λύσει ὃ δεῖ λυθῆναι, ὡς τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰδὼς κανόνα. αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀκούσατε, ὡς 
ἡνόντες ὅτι ὁ τὸν ἀληθείας προκαθεζόμενον λυπῶν, εἰς Χριστὸν ἁμαρτάνει καὶ τὸν 
πατέρα τῶν ὅλων παροργίζει" οὗ εἵνεκεν οὐ ζήσεται. 


2 See 5. R. Maitland, Albigenses and Waldenses, 1832, Ὁ. 355+ 


lvi THE KEY OF TRUTH 


is this deceit—for they do not mean that true body of Christ which 
we believe to have been born of the virgin and to have suffered on 
the cross, but they call their own flesh the body of the Lord; and 
forasmuch as they nourish their bodies by the food on their tables, 
they say that they make the body of the Lord.’ 

The same Eckbert also in another place apostrophizes these 
same heretics as follows ἢ :— 

‘From one man who came out of your hiding-places, I heard 
this piece of your wisdom—your body is the Lord’s ; and therefore 
you make the body of the Lord, when you bless your bread, and 
support your body with it.’ 


We cannot doubt that these twelfth-century German heretics 
held the same theory of the Eucharist as the Paulicians. Among 
the Albigenses who seem to have been a kindred sect, the adora- 
tion of the elect or perfect one by the believers was an established 
custom. A single example from the Lzder Sententiarum? (the record 
of the Inquisition of Toulouse between the years 1307-1323) will 
suffice :-— 

‘And as he (the credens) was taught, he adored Peter Auterius 
and James his son (the two perfect ones), saying, “Good Chris- 
tians, God’s blessing and yours,” bending his knees three times, 
with his hands on a certain bench, bowing before them and saying 
each time “ Benedicite.’” And he saw them adored in the same 
way by others.’ 

In the same cu/pa we read that the two heretics, i.e. Peter 
Auterius and James, ‘mutually adored each other. The acts of 
inquisition plainly indicate that the inquisitors regarded this adora- 
tion as an act of anthropolatry, to be punished by sword and fire. 

Nevertheless the same church which held the Inquisition of 
Toulouse has in our own generation, and in the face of an 
instructed Europe and America, formally decreed to the Bishop of 
Rome the miraculous and super-human attribute of infallibility. 
Surely the Paulician conception of the elect representatives of 
Christ on earth was a better way of apprehending the ὁμοίωσις θεῷ, 
which is man’s vocation. Doubtless it was too exclusive a concep- 
tion; and, if the church which held it had emerged triumphant, 
instead of being extinguished by ruthless massacres, it might have 
led to occasional displays of sacerdotal pride. Yet in the end 
a severalty of popes must be less hostile to the moral and intellec- 


' Maitland, Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 361. 
* Petrus 68, Culpa and Sentence. Maitland, p. 315. 


EARLY SPREAD OF PAULICIANISM lvii 


tual progress of our race, than the grinding and levelling spiritual 
despotism of a single one. 

It is difficult to bring the Greek and Armenian sources bearing 
on the history of the Paulician Church into line with each other. 
They nowhere overlap one another, and their lists of the names of 
Paulician leaders are different. It would appear that the Greeks 
were mainly interested in the Paulicians of Tephrik, whom the 
Armenian records do not notice. Assuming that my reader is 
familiar with the Greek sources, I will now proceed to summarize 
the scanty information supplied by the Armenian writers about the 
outward history of the Church. 

John the Philosopher, who became Catholicos of Armenia 
A.D. 719, uses the name Paulician, but not Thonraki. Although he 
speaks of them as ‘ the dregs of the Messalianism of Paulicianism,’ 
we need not suppose that they had anything in common with the 
Messalians or Euchitae of a previous age. All that we know of 
the latter, who are rightly described by Neander* as the first 
mendicant friars, contradicts not only the self-portraiture of the 
Armenian Paulicians in the Key, but in an equal degree conflicts 
with all we know of them from Greek sources. ‘The Armenian 
word méslnéuthiun, which I render Messalianism, was a mere term 
of abuse in the eighth century, and as such is again hurled, two 
centuries later, at the Paulicians by Gregory of Narek and Gregory 
Magistros. Of more value are four statements of John the 
Philosopher which follow: (i) That the Paulicians had been rebuked 
and repressed by Nerses Catholicos, and had after his death fled 
into Armenia into hiding-places. (ii) That thén certain Iconomachi 
expelled from Albania in the Eastern Caucasus bad joined them. 
(iii) That as oppressed dissenters from the orthodox Church they 
had sought the protection of the Arab or Mohammedan powers. 
(iv) That they imagined themselves to have discovered something 
great and new in what was after all old and obsolete, and had left 
their hiding-places and ventured out into the populous centres of 
the land in order to preach it. Lastly (v) that their own centre 
was a region called Djrkay. In this region or from it (for the text 
is not clear) they flowed over the land like a flood of suffocating 
water. 

Each of the above statements calls for some consideration. In 
regard to (i) there is a doubt as to which Nerses Catholicos is 
meant. A higher antiquity must at once be ascribed to the 


1 Vol. iii. p. 342, of English translation. 


Iviil THE KEY (OP) TRUGH 


Paulician Church of Armenia than is usually supposed, if the 
Nerses intended was the Catholicos of that name, who is by the 
Armenian chroniclers said to have been patriarch for thirty-four 
years, and who died c. 374 A.D. He more than any one else was 
responsible for the introduction into Armenia of the peculiar Greek 
Christianity of the fourth century. As such he was the first great 
exponent there of the ideas and tendencies abhorred by the 
Paulicians ; and would certainly have persecuted them, if they 
already existed in his day. There were, however, two later 
Catholici of the same name, one c. 524-533 A.D., the other 
c. 640-661, both of them anterior to John the Philosopher. 

The next statement (ii) cannot be doubted, for later on in the 
tenth century we meet with the same connexion between Albania 
and the Paulicians of Taron. Albania, at the eastern end of the 
Caucasus, the modern Daghestan, seems from the very earliest 
times to have contained a population averse to the worship of 
images and imbued with the primitive Adoptionist faith. In the 
Armenian chroniclers, who were all orthodox, we only hear of 
the orthodox Church of the Albans which was a branch of the 
Gregorian Armenian, and went to Edjmiatzin for the consecration 
of their Catholicos. Gregory Magistros records that many of their 
Catholici in succession had anathematized the Paulicians of Albania. 
Aristaces, in the same age, bears witness to the frequent and close 
relations between the heretics of Albania and those of Taron. 
John of Otzun only alludes to the image-breakers of Albania,— 
this as early as 720. That they not only abhorred images, but 
held characteristically Paulician tenets at that date is certain 
from the testimony of Moses of Kalankatuk or his continuator in 
a passage written early in the eleventh century. Here we read 
that, in the time of John Mayrogomatzi, a contemporary of Ezr 
Catholicos (630-640), there was a party in Albania which 
rejected images, did not practise baptism, did not bless the salt 
(i.e. for animal sacrifices), did not conclude marriage with the 
blessing of the Church, raising the objection that the priesthood 
had been lost upon the earth. Here we recognize the Paulicians 
without difficulty. In the same passage great antiquity is ascribed 
to them. This sect, it says, arose in the time of the apostles and 
first appeared among the Romans, for which reason a great 
Synod was held in Caesarea, and people were instructed to paint 
pictures in the house of God. Here we have an echo of the claim 
raised by the Paulicians themselves to represent the true apostolic 


IN VASPURAKAN AND ALBANIA lix 


Church. Whether we are to interpret the word ‘Romans’ of old 
or of new Rome, is not certain; probably of the old. 

From (iii) it is clear that the Paulicians had already been driven 
by persecution to seek protection of the Arabs, who since the year 
60 had successfully challenged the Roman or Greek political 
influence in Armenia. The same protection has probably enabled 
the Paulician Church to maintain its existence into the present 
century. At the same time it should be remarked that for a long 
time the Paulicians were equally opposed to Romans and Arabs. 
It was the government of Constantinople which, by its cruel perse- 
cutions of them, finally drove them into the camp of the Arabs, and 
so destroyed the only Christian outwork strong enough to ward off 
the Mohammedans. 

The next statement (iv) is evidence that John recognized the 
primitive character of Paulician opinions. 

It is to be regretted that John of Otzun does not more nearly 
locate the home and focus of Paulician activity in his day. Djrkay 
may be identified either with a canton of Perse-Armenia called by 
Indshidshian! Djrkhan or Djrgan, which lay on the Bitlis river, an 
arm of the Tigris, south-west of lake Van; or with Djrbashkh, 
a tract lying along the western slopes of Mount Masis or Ararat, 
in the neighbourhood of the modern Bayezid, close to Thonrak. 
Both districts at a later time were homes of the Paulicians; and, 
writing as late as 1800, Indshidshian (p. 113) notes that in the 
modern pashalik of Bayezid there was a tribe of Kurds called 
Manicheans, by which his informant no doubt meant Thonraki or 
Paulicians. And the names of both signify a region where water 
is plentiful; and neither of them is remote from the limits of 
Albania. 

For the rest John the Philosopher, in the treatise in which he 
assails them eo nomine, tells us little of the Paulicians. He is content 
to retail nonsense about them, and was evidently subject to the 
same unwillingness or incapacity to communicate to his readers 
their real opinions, which we find in later Armenian writers. 

Confining ourselves to Armenian sources we come next to the 
statements of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros. Accord- 
ing to these writers the founder of the Thonraki was one Smbat. 
Thonrak (or Thondrak or Thonrik, as it is variously spelt) is a lofty 
mountainous region running from about 39°--39:40 by south and 


1 Geogr. of Armenia (Mod. Arm.). Venice, 1806. 


Ix THE KEY “Obs ΕΙΠΕ 


north, and 40-50-41:40 by west and east’. In Kiepert’s map these 
mountains are called Niphates. Many streams, the easternmost 
sources of the Murad-Chai or South Euphrates, flow out of this 
massive on the north, the west, and the south-west sides of it. It 
is separated by the Bayezid branch of the Araxes from Mount 
Masis or Ararat, which towers with its lofty hump and peaked 
gendarme to the east, some fifty miles away. The Alashgerd plain 
watered by the upper Murad-Chai lies to the west, and stretches 
south-west to Melasgerd. The Turkish name of this mountain 
mass is Ala Dagh. Well away from it, beyond the rich plain of 
Melasgerd, rises the cone of Mount Sipan, 11,000 feet high, 
dominating the northern shore of Lake Van. Like Sipan, only 
more so, the Ala Dagh is volcanic; and the highest streams of the 
Murad-Chai, as they run down from its north side, are choked with 
sulphur and warm with the heat of hundreds of small geysers. 
These most eastern feeders of the Euphrates, as they run down to 
meet at Diadin, pierce their way through masses of volcanic basalt. 
The highest summit is a still smoking crater of 11,000 feet, called 
Thoonderlik, recently described by Texier and our own consul 
Taylor*. We recognize in the modern name the old Armenian 
‘Thondrik’ or ‘ Thonrik,’ derived from Zour, an oven. And in 
the myriad sulphur-laden springs of this region we probably have 
an explanation of the language used by John the Philosopher, 
‘Suffocantium diluuii aquarum portio confluit. The volcanic fire 
which in this region everywhere evidences itself, also explains the 
otherwise enigmatical language of Gregory Magistros (on pages 75 
and 80), When he reached the sources of the Euphrates he found 
himself among mountains from whose hollows burst hot water 
springs and fumaroles. Some modern Armenians have absurdly 
misconstrued his language to mean that the Paulicians, whom he 
is describing, were fire-worshippers. 

The village of Diadin or Diyadin, described on p. 223 of 
Murray’s Handbook to Asta Minor, and Tozer’s Turkish Armenia, 
p- 383, is called in the Armenian Tatedn, and probably occupies 
the site of the more ancient Zarehavan, the frontier town of the 
old Cantons of Tsalkotn and Kokowit of Bagrevandene. Built 
6,000 above the sea, it is a poor and ruinous place to-day ; but the 

1 Thonrak is by Aristaces (p. 135) located in Apahuni, a canton of Turubaran. 
It was on the extreme east of Apahuni probably. Alishian puts Thonrak 


in the canton of Tsalkotn. The limits of the old cantons cannot really be 
traced nowadays. 


2 Proceedings of R. Geogr. Soc. xiii. 
ΟἹ 


ERRATUM 


Page lxi, 1. 9 from foot, for A.D. 721 vead A.D. 821 


The Key of Truth 


TOPOGRAPHY OF THONRAK Ixi 


remains of a massive fortress overhanging the basalt gorge, through 
which the feeders of the Euphrates now united into a single torrent 
run, prove that it was once an important place, It was probably 
the Zarouana of Ptolemy; and Faustus, the fourth century 
Armenian writer, records that here dwelt 5,000 Armenian families 
and 8,000 Jewish, numbers which we may safely halve. There 
still remained a circus or s/adion, when in that century Shaphoy, 
the Persian tyrant, burned and sacked the city and massacred its 
inhabitants. In the next century the Armenian soldier Vardan 
defeated the Persians at this spot; and in 655, according to the 
historian Asolik, it still was a strong position. Here was born, late 
in the eighth century, one in whom we may perhaps recognize the 
founder, as Greg. Nar. and Greg. Mag. agree in calling him, of 
the Thonraki branch of the Paulician Church, Smbat the Bagratuni. 

The prejudice of later Armenian historians has made it impossi- 
ble to be sure of the identity of this great religious leader; but 
there are reasons for thinking that he was no other than Smbat 
Bagratuni, the founder of the petty Armenian dynasty of that name, 
which now under Persian, now under Byzantine suzerainty ruled 
over Taron or Taraunitis (in Kiepert’s map), from a.p. 856 to 
1062. ‘Taron was properly but a single canton in the large pro- 
vince of Turuberan, which, roughly speaking, included the whole 
valley of the Murad-Chai or south-east Euphrates to the east of 
the modern Kharput. To-day Mush is the chief city and seat 
of government of this region. But the name Taron was extended 
by mediaeval Armenian historians and geographers to include the 
whole region. 

The reasons for identifying the founder of the Thonraki with 
Smbat Bagratuni, the Confessor, as his countrymen owing to his 
martyr’s death afterwards called him, are the following :— 


1. The chronicler Mekhitar, of Airivang, who, though he only 
wrote about 1300, compiled his work carefully from earlier sources, 
has the following entry under the year a. Ὁ. 721: ‘Sembat Ablabsay 
(i.e. Father of Abas). He was the leader (or ‘the first ἡ) of the 
heresy of the Thonraki.’ 

2. Gregory of Narek implies that Smbat was murdered by 
a Mohammedan warrior. This warrior, he says, was himself 
nearly akin and allied to the madness of Smbat and his disciples, 
and had learned at first hand of Smbat’s pretensions to be 
Christ. 

3. On the other hand Gregory Magistros, like Gregory of Narek 


Ixii THEDKEY OF TROUGH 


had in his hands the book of Ananias Narekatzi against the 
Thonraki, a source which, if we had it, would outweigh in impor- 
tance all the others. Whether it was also in the hands of Mekhitar 
we do not know ; though it may well have been, as it was in those 
of Nerses Catholicos in 1165. Ananias, says Magistros, had let 
one know ‘who and what Smbat was.’ Now Gregory affirms not 
that Smbat was Smbat Bagratuni, but only that he flourished in 
his time and in that of a Lord (i.e. Catholicos) John, who if he 
preceded Gregory Magistros by as little as 200 years must be 
identified with John of Owaiq', who became Catholicos in 833. 
Gregory’s term of 170 years is hardly long enough. ‘Twice over 
he says that 170? years had elapsed and no less than thirteen 
patriarchs of Great Armenia had successively anathematized the 
sect between Smbat’s day and his own. Now from John the Fifth 
to Sarkis the First inclusive, who died about rorg, immediately after 
issuing an anathema against the sect, there were, it is true, counted 
thirteen Catholici. And we must suppose that Gregory does not 
reckon among the thirteen Peter Getadards, who acceded in ΤΟΙ 
and died in 1058; because it was actually during his Catholicate 
that he (Gregory Magistros) was conducting against the Thonraki 
the persecutions which he relates. But for these thirteen Catholici 
170 years is not enough, and we must rather adopt the term of 
200 years which he gives in another letter (see p. 151) to the 
Vardapet Sargis or Sarkis. 

4. Other sources, however, incline us to identify the Paulician 


1 Yet Greg. Mag. (p. 144) seems to identify the ‘ Lord John,’ in whose day 
Smbat appeared, with John of Otzun, who wrote against the Paulicians. But 
John of Otzun became catholicos in 718, 330 years before Gregory Magistros 
was writing. He also implies that John of Otzun had assailed Smbat’s heresy, 
which was hardly possible if Smbat lived a hundred years later. Gregory’s 
account is impossible as it stands; and he apparently confuses John of Otzun, 
Catholicos in 719, with John of Owaiq, Catholicos in 833; and perhaps after 
all, as we shall suggest on p. lxvii, it was an earlier John Catholicos, soon 
after 600, whose contemporary Smbat the Paulician founder really was, 
Different Smbats of the house of Bagrat are also confused, it would seem; 
probably because they were all Paulicians together. 

* So on pp. 142 and 145, but on p. 151 he assigns 200 years, which better 
agrees with the date of Smbat Bagratuni as attested by Arab sources. The 
discrepancy in the text of Greg. Mag. may be connected with a similar dis- 
crepancy among the Armenian historians of the ninth century, some of whom put 
Smbat thirty years later than others. Perhaps the text of Mag. has been altered 
to suit. Note that on p. 142 Mag. assigns fifteen patriarchs, and not thirteen, to 
the period which had elapsed since Smbat’s appearance as heresiarch. See also 
p: Ixviii, 


WHO WAS SMBAT THE HERESIARCH ? lxiii 


leader with Smbat Bagratuni. Thus in Constantine Porphyro- 
genitus de Admin, Imp., cap. 44 (ed. Bekk. 1840, vol. iii. p. 191), 
we read this: ἰστέον ὅτι πρὸ τοῦ ᾿Ασωτίου τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῶν ἀρχόντων, τοῦ 
πατρὸς τοῦ Συμβατίου τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὃν ἀπεκεφάλισεν ὁ ἀμηρᾶς 
Περσίδος ὁ ᾿Αποσάτας. Constantine wrote not later than 958. Unless 
two Smbats were murdered by the Arab invader, surely Smbat 
Bagratuni was the one intended by Gregory of Narek. 

5. Thomas Artsruni, who died about 940, implies that Smbat 
Bagratuni was addicted to heresy. I quote him in Brosset’s trans- 
lation: John V. of Owaiq (says this authority) became Catholicos 
in 833, ‘qui gouvernait la Sainte église, de la croyance orthodoxe 
apostolique, du Seigneur J. C., d'une manieére tout-a-fait admirable, 
et imposait aux princes Arméniens l’obligation de marcher en 
dignes adhérents de la foi Chrétienne, afin que leurs ceuvres té- 
moignassent de la réalité de leur titre de Chrétiens, On accueillait 
ses avis, ou les écoutait volontiers; mais on ne renongait pas aux 
actes impurs, aux dégofitantes passions de Sodome; on imitait les 
vices de nos anciens rois, de la famille Arsacide. .. . Le Catholicos 
les exhortait ἃ s’abstenir d’impuretés et des ceuvres pernicieuses 
qu’ils commettaient.... nul ne levait les yeux vers les lois du 
Seigneur; les oreilles inattentives ne s’ouvraient que pour la vipére 
maudite et pour l’aspic aux morsures incurable.’ 

Here the charge of impurity assuredly means no more than it 
means from the lips of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros 
and Aristaces’, namely Paulicianism. As such it is opposed to the 
‘ orthodox apostolic belief’ of the Catholicos; the real antithesis 
to orthodoxy was not vice, but heresy, which was worse than vice. 
For the same reason the Armenian king, Smbat Bagratuni, is com- 
pared to the old Arsacide kings. These latter were not peculiarly 
addicted to nameless vice ; but some of them were very conserva- 
tive in matters of religion. Notably the king Arshak, who in the 
fourth century set up a rival Catholicos to the grecizing Catholicos 
Nerses; notably Arshak’s successor Pap, who, after the death of 
Nerses, set himself to undo his so-called reforms of the Armenian 
Church, to send about their business the monks and nuns intro- 
duced by him and in other ways dispense with the orthodox Greek 
models imported from Caesarea. 

If there were any doubt on this point, it is removed by other 
contemporary Armenian historians, such as Asolik, John Catholicos 
and Stephanus of Siuniq, who relate that Smbat Bagratuni had 


+ See pp. 125, 136, 144, 145. 


Ixiv THE, KEY -OF -iRUGE 


a standing feud with John of Owaiq, and that, with the help of his 
nobles, he deprived him of his catholicate, and in 841 set up a 
rival in his place. They explain Smbat’s subsequent defeat and 
capture by the Mohammedan Emir Abusa’ad as a punishment of 
God for his recalcitrancy towards the orthodox Catholicos, and for 
his heretical backslidings. 

But before John the Fifth became catholicos Smbat had already 
been in conflict with his predecessor, David the Second, who 
acceded in 806 and died ¢. 832. Smbat had conspired with other 
chiefs of Armenia, named Sewaday and Sahak of Siuniq, to throw 
off the overlordship of the Khalifs of Bagdad. In these patriotic 
struggles the Catholicos David had taken part with ΗΘ] or Haul, 
the Khalif’s lieutenant. We can only explain David’s somewhat 
unpatriotic policy by supposing that Smbat was already in religious 
antagonism with the orthodox patriarch; and the Mohammedans 
were quick to turn to account the religious feuds of a country 
which they coveted. 

In the year 847 a new Khalif ascended the throne of Bagdad, 
Aboul-al Djafar, who took the title Motéwekkel-al’ Allah. He 
commissioned Abousa’ad, an Arab chief who lived in the Armenian 
marches, to attack and reduce the Armenian princes—Ashot, who 
ruled in Vaspurakan, the province south and east of Van, and 
Bagarat, who ruled over Taron. Advancing through Atropatene, 
Abousa’ad (or, according to Thomas Artsruni, his son Joseph, the 
father having died on the way) routed Ashot; and, after making 
terms with him, went on to the fortress of Khlath’, which lay under 
Mount Sipan at the north-west corner of Lake Van. There he 
halted and invited Smbat, who owed his title of king of kings and 
Sparapel, or governor of Armenia, to the Khalif’s appointment, to 
come and see him. Smbat Bagarat, nothing suspecting, responded 
to the orders of the Khalif’s representative and set out for Khelat, 
taking with him ‘the holy Testaments, the divine books,’ and 
attended by retainers and clergy. The Emir at once treacherously 
seized him and his relatives, and sent them in chains to Samara in 
Mesopotamia. ‘Then he marched himself to Mush, where he fixed 
his winter quarters, after devastating the whole province and enslav- 
ing its inhabitants. The mountaineers of Sasoun, where Smbat had 
his castle of Sim, were alone unsubdued. They, at the approach 
of Spring (March, 852), rallied to avenge the treacherous capture 
of their loved chieftain, Smbat. They stormed Mush, and slew 


1 See Tozer’s Zurkish Armenia, chap. xii. 


HE WAS PROBABLY SMBAT BAGRATUNI ἴχν 


the margpan Joseph, son of Abousa’ad, there where he had taken 
refuge, on the roof of the great church of Mush built by Smbat. 
Thomas Artsruni asserts that he had seen the very man who slew 
the Arab oppressor. 

The same writer gives an interesting description of the Khowth, 
as the men of Sasoun were called. They lived in deep valleys and 
remote forests, or on the rough hill-tops. They had no towns, 
and went about in snow-shoes during winter. They all knew the 
Psalms by heart in the old Armenian translation. Indshidshian, 
the Armenian geographer, describing them about the year 1800, 
says that they still spoke in a dialect almost identical with the 
classical Armenian tongue; and this explains Thomas Artsruni’s 
statement that they spoke in the ninth century a tongue hardly 
intelligible to their neighbours. ‘There can be no doubt that these 
brave mountaineers were Armenian Puritans or Paulicians. 

The prejudice of Armenian chroniclers, who were all drawn 
from the ranks of the orthodox Church, has obscured the subse- 
quent fate of Smbat. Thomas Artsruni relates that he recanted 
his Christian faith and was circumcised as a Mussulman ; and that 
the Artsruni princes, in submitting to the same fate, only followed 
his example. He allows, however, that Smbat really kept the true 
faith at heart; holding that outward apostasy through fear was no 
evil, if at heart the faith is retained. Herein, says Thomas, he 
followed the evil counsel of Elclésianos’, the opponent of Novatian. 
The translator of the Armenian version of Nana’s Syrzac Commen- 
tary on the Fourth Gospel, a contemporary of Thomas, preserves in 
his colophon the same tale of Smbat’s apostasy. He does not say 
indeed in so many words that he turned Mussulman, but only that 
‘he forsook the divine faith and fell never to rise again,—and this 
although he claimed to have for his own the whole and entire 
knowledge of the faith which is in Christ.’ 

But according to the chronicler, Vardan (d.c.1270), Smbat Spara- 
pet, having been removed about 855 by the Emir Bouha to Bagdad, 
died a martyr’s death, refusing to abjure his faith. Bouha offered 
repeatedly to restore to him his kingdom of Armenia, but Smbat’s 
answer was always the same: ‘I cannot leave Christ. I cannot 
quit the Christian faith, which by the grace of the font I have 
received.’ He was tortured and slain.. Some of his fellow- 
prisoners who were Christians asked his body of the Khalif; and, 


1 i.e. Elkesaeus. See the original Greek of the ‘counsel’ in Euseb. 27. Z. vi. 
38, whence Thomas probably derived his information. 


€ 


Ixvi tHE KEY OF TRUE 


according to John Catholicos (who heard it from an eye-witness), 
they took it to Babylon and laid it in the shrine erected on the site 
of the lion’s den into which Daniel the prophet had been thrown. 
Smbat was known by Armenians after his death as the Confessor. 

If this Smbat was not the founder of the Thonraki, then why 
did certain Armenian Church historians, among them Thomas 
Artsruni, conspire to blacken his memory with this charge of 
apostasy? Why the accusations of impurity merely because he 
was opposed to the orthodox prelates David and John? Why did 
these ecclesiastics make common cause against him with the 
infidel? Yet he built the great Church of Mush, and took with 
him the Scriptures wherever he went. It is not enough to suppose 
that he was an adherent of the Council of Chalcedon, then and 
Jater a bone of contention among Armenian churchmen, The 
assaults upon Smbat are too virulent to be so explained; nor does 
any writer give the least colour to the assertion that he was 
a Chalcedonist. 

Thus Mekhitar’s account is the one which best accords with 
most of the other sources. Nevertheless, we must accept it 
with all reserve in view of the positive statement in the letter of 
Gregory Magistros (see p. 144), that ‘the accursed one appeared in 
the days of the Lord John and of the Smbat Bagratuni.’ In any 
case it is certain that the heresiarch Smbat was a member of the 
royal house of Bagarat. His name Smbat, and Mekhitar’s 
chronicle fully establish that: nor is it easy to escape the admis- 
sion, painful to some Armenians, that the then head of the 
Bagratuni dynasty was also a heretic. Smbat the heresiarch may 
have been the same person whom Smbat Bagratuni elevated to 
the catholicate when he deposed the orthodox catholicos John of 
Owaig. The Armenian sources, cited pell-mell and without any 
sense of their discrepancies or attempt to reconcile them, by 
Tchamtchean?, in his great history of Armenia, imply that about 
a.D. 835 another Bagarat, a near relative of Smbat Sparapet, 
father of Abas, was made Patrik of Armenia. He, too, had his 
castle at Sim among the mountaineers of Sasoun. If this one was 
not a double of the former, he may have been the heresiarch. 

My readers will, I am sure, appreciate the difficulty there is in 
obtaining a clear and unprejudiced account of events from 
Armenian chroniclers, and will not accuse me of vacillation if 
I now broach another and new hypothesis as to who Smbat was. 


1 In Bodleian Catal., under ‘ Chamich.’ 


ARMENIAN SOURCES CONFLICTING Ixvii 


For the association in the pages of Gregory Magistros of Smbat 
the Paulician, leader and legislator, with a Persian physician 
Mdiusik, suggests quite another -view of who he was. The 
historian Sebeos preserves a letter sent to the Emperor Constans 
by the Armenian clergy assembled in Dwin under the catholicos 
Nerses in a.p. 648, when the emperor was trying to force the 
decrees of the Council of Chalcedon on the Armenian Church. 
In this letter it is related that the Persian king, Aprouéz Chosrow, 
after his capture of Jerusalem in 614, convoked at his court an 
assembly of the eastern, especially of the Armenian and Syrian 
clergy, and appointed the Smbat Bagratuni, called Chosrow’s 
Shoum (or Shnoum) to preside over it in conjunction with the 
‘chief physician of his court.’ There was also present Zachariah, 
the captive patriarch of Jerusalem. ‘There were many Nestorians 
present,’ says the letter, ‘and many other miscellaneous heretics. 
Moreover, the patriarch came forward and said: “ Let not that man 
(? Jesus) be called God.” The king, on being informed of this, 
had the patriarch beaten and turned out, and all the other heretics 
present were similarly treated.’ The letter then records that King 
Chosrow, with the help of the orthodox Armenians, decided in 
favour of the Nicene and earlier councils, and against that of 
Chalcedon. Is it possible that here we have a garbled record of 
the results arrived at? May not Smbat Bagratuni, the minister 
of Chosrow, and joint president of this assembly with the Persian 
king’s chief physician, be the Paulician founder? The conjunction 
of a Smbat Bagratuni with a Persian physician in connexion with 
Christian creeds is an odd one. Gregory Magistros records it, and 
here we meet with it exactly. Gregory also declares that a Lord 
John was catholicos at the time. John of Bagran was actually 
catholicos ἐς. 595-620, when Chosrow’s conference took place. Thus 
this Smbat fulfils all the requirements of the case save one, and 
that is this: Gregory Magistros implies that Smbat lived no more 
than 200 years before the date at which he was writing, i.e. about 
850. But our present hypothesis would place him over 200 years 
further back, about 600. Perhaps Gregory confused the two Johns. 

Gregory also gives us a list of the Paulician presidents or heads 
of the Church, who succeeded Smbat, the founder or organizer of 
the sect. Their names were Theodorus, Ananias, Sarkis, Cyrill, 
Joseph, Jesu, and in the days of Magistros himself, Lazar. The 
period covered by these seven leaders is reckoned by Magistros, 
sometimes at 170, sometimes at 200. In the former case he may be 


€ 2 


Ixvili THE KEY OF TRUTH 


reckoning up to the year rorg, when Sarkis I issued his anathema ; 
in the latter to the year 1050, when he was himself persecuting them. 
Now seven heresiarchs, succeeding each other, would fill up 170 or 
even 200 years, but hardly 4oo. 

It is tempting to identify the third of these heresiarchs, Sarkis, 
with the Paulician leader Sergius, so well known from Photius, 
Peter of Sicily, and the other Greek writers; Sarkis being the 
Armenian form of Sergius. But since Petrus Siculus places the 
missionary activity of Sergius in the thirty-four years beginning 
from Irene’s reign and extending to Theophilus, that is from 
c. 800-834, the identification is barely possible’. It is probable, 
however, that the Sergius of the Greek writers is the heresiarch 
mentioned, but not dated, by Matthew of Edessa (ch. 79), in the 
theological manifesto prepared by King Gagik of Ani for the 
Roman Emperor Dukas (1071-1078 a.p.). After anathematizing 
Valentinus, Marcion, Montanus, Manes, Nabateus, Sabellius, Arius, 
and Photinus, Gagik proceeds: ‘We also anathematize Nestorius, 
and I anathematize Tychus, and by his Armenian name Sarkis, 
along with his dog and his ass, and may he in the last day partake 
of the lot of dogs and asses.’ 

I believe that for Tychus we should here read Tychicus?, and 
that the great Paulician leader, who re-named himself Tychicus, 
is here meant. Even if Tychus is a mis-spelling of Eutyches, the 
identification of Sarkis with the Paulician leader is almost certain. 
But it would seem as if the Armenians only knew of their com- 
patriot Sarkis through Greek sources. It was among Greeks that 
his missionary activity had lain; and all the fragments of him 
preserved in Petrus Siculus and Photius are Greek. The orthodox 
Greeks, for example Zigabenus, incessantly cast this famous heretic 
in the teeth even of orthodox Armenians, much to their annoyance. 


1 Several Armenian scholars have supposed that the Sergius of the Greek 
sources and the Smbat of the Armenian were the same person, because they 
agree so wonderfully both in the date and in the character of their activity. 
But the Greek sources fix the scene of the missionary labours of Sergius much 
further west than Thonrak, which is just behind Ararat. This is a greater 
objection to their identification than the difference of names; for the same 
person was often known to Greeks by one name and to Armenians by another. 

* The conyerse error occurs in an early twelfth century copy of Zigabenus’ 
redaction of Scor. preserved in a recently acquired British Museum codex. Here 
we read, in the list of Paulician heresiarchs: τὸν Σέργιον, τὸν καὶ Εὐτύχικον, 
where Scor. and the other texts have Τυχικόν. Here Εὐτύχικον must be a mis- 
placed reminiscence of Eutyches, and so in Matthew of Edessa may the reading 
Tychon for Tychicon. 


TOPOGRAPHY OF HARQ AND MANANALI | Ixix 


They on their part had no clear memory of who Sarkis was; and 
Nerses Clajensis (¢. 1100-1170) in his sixth Epistle, § 8, identifies 
him with St. Sergius of Cappodocia, martyred by barbarians in the 
age of Constantine the Great. ‘Sergius with his dog and ass,’ 
brings vividly before us the great missionary who for thirty-four 
years wandered east and west, and north and south, evangelizing the 
people. 

The events narrated by Aristaces are an isolated episode in the 
history of the Paulician Church, and must have occurred about the 
year 1000 a.p. Their scene was the country extending southwards 
from Erzeroum as far as the modern Mush. All the regions named 
are in the Turuberan province. The mountain Pakhr or hill of 
Emery must have been the range bordering the Euphrates to the 
south-west of Erzeroum or Karin. Harq is the Xdpxa of Constantine 
Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp. cap. 44). It was a region south 
of Erzeroum, where numerous torrents take their rise among the 
north and east ridges of the Pinkeul or Bingeul range to flow 
away through deep ravines, ultimately to converge in the plain of 
Karachoban. After traversing that plain, they turn to the south, 
and run into the Murad Chai at Karaghil, almost doubling its 
volume. Khanus (Khynus in Stanford’s royal atlas) is described 
by Consul Brandt in the proceedings of the Royal Geographical 
Society. It lies in a well-grassed valley, full of game, and the old 
castle built on a rock overhanging the river proves it to have been 
a stronghold in the past. It has always kept its name. It is 
situated on the dividing line between the old cantons of Pasen and 
Bagrevand, and about fifty miles in a direct line from Erzeroum, 
and fifty from Mush. It also gives its name_to the confluent of the 
Murad Chai which flows under its walls. 

Photius has misled every one by his location of Mananali close 
to Samosata. It was really a region round about the modern 
Karachoban; which must be the point at which, as Aristaces 
relates, it came down to the Eastern Euphrates, or rather to the 
Bingeul arm of that river, now called the Khanus or Khinis Chai, 
one mile from Karachoban, according to Murray’s handbook of 
Asia Minor. This river is crossed by the Kara Keupri bridge, and 
near the Kuminji saltworks the same river can be forded. It was 
the presence of salt that gave this tract the name of Mananali, for 
ali means salt. The walled towns of Elia and Kother, where the 
Byzantine officer held his court’, must have been close to this 


1 See p. 138. 


lxx THE: ΚΕ ΘΕ FRUTH 


ford on the north and south sides of the Khinis Chai. Such is the 
neighbourhood in which was born Constantine, the founder, accord- 
ing to the Greek sources, of the Paulician sect; and from this very 
same region came the Armenians who, early in this century, brought 
The Key of Truth to the village of Arkhwéli in Russian Armenia. 

The village of Tdjaurm or Tschaurm where, according to these 
peasants, the book was actually copied by John in 1782, is easily 
identified with the modern Chevirme or Chaurma. This is, 
according to Murray’s handbook, ‘a hospitable Kurd village,’ 6,645 
feet above the sea, and one mile south of the ford over the Araxes, 
which, like the Khanus arm of the Eastern Euphrates, takes its 
rise in the Bingeul range due south of Erzeroum. Until the 
beginning of this century it was inhabited by the Armenian Pauli- 
cians. Aristaces spells it Djermay, and calls it a ‘city-village.’ Here 
also, according to him’, met together the minions of the patriarch 
Samuel to anathematize the six Paulician doctors, and brand them 
on the forehead. The historian Sebeos mentions the same place 
in the seventh century, and relates that it was famous for its hot 
springs, to which the Roman governors of Theodosioupolis (Karin 
or Erzeroum) used to resort in search of health. The city called 
by Aristaces Muharkin on p. 136, where the Paulician James ended 
his days, must be the same with Mufarkin, another name for 
Nfrkert or Martyropolis on the upper Tigris, near Amid. 

The letter of Gregory of Narek gives few details with regard to 
the geographical diffusion of the Paulician Church. The monastery 
of Kdshav, of which the inmates were affected, was situated in the 
province of Mok, north-west of the modern Bitlis, and not far east 
from the Sasun district. This province seems to have included the 
high ground in which rise the springs of the Bitlis branch of the 
Tigris and those of the Kara Su or Mush arm of the Murad Chai. 

Gregory Magistros supplies a few more hints about the ramifica- 
tion of the Paulicians. Thulail, where they were so numerous that 
the sect was known as Thulaili, was a town-district in the district 
of Mananali, in the province of Turuberan or Taron. Yet another 
centre of them was Kasché on the Araxes, near Joulfa. 

We learn that the congregation of Thulail had entered into 
relations with the Syrian Patriarch, when the Armenian catholicos 
brusquely rejected their appeal to him to recognize them as 
orthodox Armenians. The congregation of Thonrak had done the 
same; and it is clear that the Paulicians looked to Syria for 


1 See p. 138. 


BYZANTINE OPPRESSION OF PAULICIANS Ixxi 


sympathy, and found it there. It would appear that the persecu- 
tion of the Paulicians was more vigorous in proportion as Byzantine 
influence in Taron and Vaspurakan was more felt. In the latter 
part of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century, the 
power of the Khalifs of Bagdad was almost annihilated in these 
provinces. Gregory Magistros drew his title of Duke of Vas- 
purakan and Taron from Constantinople, and held his commission 
to harry and destroy the Paulicians from Constantine IX Mono- 
machus, who reigned from 1042-1054. This emperor’s policy 
was but a continuation of the Byzantine policy of the ninth 
century; and Gregory takes much credit to himself for only 
harrying his Paulician compatriots, whereas the Byzantine generals 
of a former age had put out their eyes and turned them loose, in 
the few cases in which they had not murdered them outright. The 
favourite punishment devised by the orthodox catholici of Armenia 
was to brand their foreheads with the image of a fox. It is clear, 
from the campaign of Gregory Magistros, that the Armenian 
patriarchs, in spite of their quarrel with the Greeks over the 
Council of Chalcedon, were ever ready to co-operate with them, 
when there was a chance to outrage and murder their own Armenian 
heretics. Nor were things much otherwise in 1837. Then it was 
the Russian, and not the Byzantine authorities, whose aid was 
invoked ; but there is not much difference. 

From Nerses Clajensis we learn of another ramification of the 
Paulician Church in the province of Hamajch in Syrian Meso- 
potamia, and it is a devout prince Ariuz of the town of Thelkuran 
(north of Diarbekr) who solicits his advice about them. 

This Nerses wrote in a.p. 1166, and after this date there follows 
a blank of six centuries, during which the published Armenian 
sources yield no notices of the Paulician Church; though it is 
probable that a careful scrutiny of unpublished chronicles written 
during this period would bring to light some particulars of its 
survival and vicissitudes all through the Middle Ages. ‘hat it had 
not been extinguished by the exertions of Gregory Magistros is 
certain; for in the narrative of an orthodox Armenian, Paul W. 
Mehérean, written about the beginning of this century, we have 
proofs of the vitality which it still retained in the same tract of 
country between Erzeroum and Mush, in which it had always 
flourished. Paul Mehérean’s MS. is preserved in the library of 
San Lazaro, in Venice. On p. 120 of it he tells us that he met, 
when travelling to Karin or Erzeroum, with Armenians who had 


Ixxii THE KEY OF TRUTH 


denied their faith, and were such heretics as are the Thonraki 
or Késkés. In the latter name we recognize the Kaschelzt of 
Gregory Magistros. He then relates that in the Wang or monastery 
of Bordshimasur there was an abbot named Hovhannes, who, falsely 
assuming the style of bishop, had ordained fourteen priests, and had 
caused considerable stir in the neighbourhood of Karin. Attacked 
by the orthodox Armenians, he had fled to the neighbourhood of 
Manazkert, and there continued his propaganda. Next he tells us 
that under Zachariah, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, 
between the years 1774 and 1781, an Armenian named Hovhannes, 
no doubt the abbot already mentioned—came to Constantinople, 
and spread his heresy there. In consequence, he was imprisoned 
for eight months by the Armenian Patriarch. Escaping from his 
bonds, he returned to the neighbourhood of Khanus, and began 
a systematic propaganda there and in the surrounding villages. 
Subsequently Hovhannes visited Venice, where Mekhitar had 
already planted his convent of San Lazaro, and thence returned to 
Erzeroum and Mush. To escape the persecutions of the orthodox 
Armenians he more than once proclaimed himself a Mohammedan ; 
nevertheless he was imprisoned in Edjmiatzin, but escaping thence 
he returned to the village of Maroukh in the Khanus region, and 
began ‘to diffuse his poison afresh.’ The writer Paul pretends 
that in 1801 this missionary finally became a Turk or Mohammedan, 
‘a son of perdition,’ as he puts it. We have seen that the same 
story was told eight centuries before of Smbat Bagratuni. 

Truly the Armenians are a tenacious race, and neither their 
heresies nor the methods of combating them undergo much change. 
It is probable that in the present day many of the converts of the 
American Protestant missions in Erzeroum, Mush, Bitlis, Kharput, 
and other places, are Paulicians by heredity. As Protestant 
converts they have gained that protection from their countrymen’s 
violence, which for centuries they must have sighed for. 

The Hovhannes of whom we read in Paul W. Mehérean was 
indubitably the Hovhannes who, in 1782, made the copy of Zhe 
Key of Truth from which my text is printed. And he may very 
well have been the author of the appended catechism; though 
I am inclined to assign to this addition a more remote date, say 
the thirteenth or fourteenth century. As he began by being abbot 
of a monastery, he must have had some education such as the 
scribe of 1782, in his colophon, shows that he possessed. Whether 
he was a Paulician by birth or by conversion we do not know. 


CENTRES OF GREEK PAULICIANISM Ixxiil 


That he ordained twelve priests or elect ones proves that in the 
last decades of the last century the Paulician Church still had many 
adherents in Upper Armenia. 

This exhausts the history of the Paulicians, so far as we can glean 
it from purely Armenian sources. Into their history as given by the 
Greek writers I have not entered and shall not enter in detail; for 
my readers will find excellent summaries in books easily procurable, 
for example in Gibbon’s brilliant chapter, in Neander (vol. v), in 
Gieseler’s History of the Paulicians, and in Smith’s Dictionary of 
Christian Biography. 

It is of interest, however, to notice the geographical distribution 
assigned to the Paulicians by the Greek writers. Constantine their 
founder was born in Mananali, a purely Armenian canton as we 
have seen, and close to Karin or Erzeroum, but remote from 
Samosata, where the Greek writers wrongly locate it. From 
Mananali he went to Cibossa, a town near Colonia, which lay east 
of Sebastia, on the Halys, the modern Sivas. One Colonia is 
identified with the modern Shabin Kara-hissar, 4,860 feet above 
the sea, fifty miles due south of Kerasund on the Black Sea. 
Perhaps, however, we should identify the Colonia of Paulician 
history with the ancient stronghold founded by Pompey on the 
west bank of the Euphrates and to the north of Melitene. The 
Armenians in the tenth century called it Aloons. 

Constantine Copronymus, in the eleventh year of his reign, after 
reconquering the Armenian province of Melitene, transported 
numbers of the Paulicians, whom he found there and in Theo- 
dosioupolis or Karin, to Thrace to defend the line of the Danube. 
Under the Emperor Nikephorus, early in the ninth century, the 
Paulicians were numerous in Phrygia and Lycaonia. Under Leo 
the Armenian we read of them in Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
where an inquisition of them was opened in that reign. 

Kunoskhora in Armenia, the place where, in consequence of the 
cruelties of this inquisition, the Paulicians rose in rebellion, I cannot 
locate. Magistros calls Thonrak ‘a place of dogs,’ which answers to 
οἱ κατοικοῦντες κυνὸς τὴν χώραν Of Petrus Siculus, p. 66 ; but this cannot 
be the same place, for from 813-820, when Leo reigned, the Khalifs 
of Bagdad were paramount in Thonrak, and outside the Roman 
dominion the Paulicians were ever safe from Byzantine cruelty. 
Argaus, which, about the same time the Saracens assigned to the 
Paulicians, and where Sergius lived, was probably the modern Argo- 
van, twenty-five miles north of Melitene. One of the chief Paulician 


Ixxiv THE KEY OF TRUTH 


congregations was at Mopsuestia, only five hours east of Adana. 
Lastly, Tephrike, where the Church made its famous stand, is 
a well-known site some seventy miles south-east of Sivas on the 
river Chalta, which, rising on the south side of Mount Argaeus, 
flows due east to join the northern Euphrates fifteen to twenty 
miles north of Egin. 

The scanty historical notices which the Greek writers contain 
do not overlap the equally slender Armenian sources. ‘The latter 
concern the Paulician movement to the east of the Euphrates ; the 
former relate its struggles with Greek orthodoxy to the west of that 
great boundary. On this side of the Euphrates it was that the Greek 
populations were attracted by it. Here was a large bilingual 
Armenian population, speaking Greek, yet not forgetting their own 
tongue. They must have been the chief purveyors to the Greek 
world of a puritanism which essentially belonged to a race of vigorous 
mountaineers, and was alien to the debased Greek spirit of the eighth 
century. On this side of Asia Minor also, especially in Phrygia, 
they were in contact and, as I shall presently point out, probably 
in actual religious communion with the still surviving and ancient 
Montanist Church. 

But although our two sets of sources have little in common 
beyond their sketch of Paulician tenets and character, there can be 
no doubt that the Puritan communities both east and west of the 
Euphrates were bound together in a common policy. If the early 
Bagratuni dynasty from 820-850 was hostile to the Arab Khalifs, it 
was because the latter hampered and curtailed the aspirations of 
Armenia after freedom, religious and political. For the same reason 
to the west of the Euphrates the Paulicians were enemies of the 
Byzantines who persecuted, and friends of the Arabs who protected, 
them. But the disasters which befell them in the west found their 
echo in Armenia Magna. And the persecution of the Empress 
Theodora, during whose regency (842-867) one hundred thousand 
of them were martyred, unquestionably weakened their influence 
further east. Smbat Bagratuni the Sparapet seems to have been 
the last of the petty Armenian dynasts who favoured them. Local 
heads of clans here and there, like the Wrwér, and men of royal.— 
family like Mushel, continued here and there to take their part and 
share their sufferings. But they nowhere held the government in 
their hands; and from about the year goo onwards they were 
outcasts, and their hand against every man’s. And such have ever 
since continued to be their fortunes. 


CAUSES OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CONQUEST  Ixxv 


But it is against itself that a state or a church rejects the counsel 
of God; and Eastern Christianity, Greek and Armenian alike, is to 
this day bleeding from the wounds which, in its cruel persecutions of 
these early Puritans, it inflicted on itself. To us who are the heirs 
of the ages the truth of things is slowly unrobed; and there is an 
irony too painfully clear in the circumstance that in the chronicle 
of Aristaces the pages immediately following the two malignant 
chapters about the Paulicians, translated in my appendix, have for 
their topic the capture of the royal city of Ani and the massacre of 
its inhabitants by Alp Arslan. As we read these dreadful pages 
which tell us of the cruelties of the human wolf of the eleventh 
century, we seem to hear the shrieks and groans of the miserable 
victims of the human wolf of to-day, still ravening in the plains and 
valleys of Armenia. Fortune does not always smile on bigots 
and persecutors; and Gregory Magistros had scarcely ended his 
harryings of his Paulician countrymen, had hardly concluded his 
bombastic recital of his exploits as a persecutor, before the star of 
his country set in a mist of Tartar bloodshed and oppression out 
of which it was never again to emerge. Nor was retribution 
really less certain, if it was less swift, in the country west of the 
Euphrates. Paulicianism was the natural faith of the hardy moun- 
taineers of the Taurus; and in destroying them the blind fanaticism 
of Byzantium destroyed its only bulwark against Saracen invasion. 

‘In the Greek borderlands, west of the Taurus and Euphrates, 
were encamped the Paulicians, opposing to the worldly orthodoxy 
of the empire a genuinely apostolical Christianity founded on the 
Bible. Persecuted under the emperors of the seventh century, they 
enjoyed (in the eighth) a thorough-going toleration, thanks to 
the wise policy of the Iconoclasts who followed. The brave bands 
of these Christian Maccabeans furnished a frontier-cordon against 
Islam as vigorous as it was indispensable. To strengthen this line 
of defence the extraordinary spiritual leadership of Sergius (about 
800) had done not a little. Yet the persecutions under the Caesars 
Michael I and Leo V drove a portion of them into the Arab 
domain. But when Theodora began her extraordinarily bloody 
persecution, this brave population was seized with universal despair. 
The commissioners sent to inquire into their faith rivalled in blood- 
thirstiness the officers of the Spanish inquisition, They were 
murdered, and the robber-incursions into the empire began. The 
sect found in Karbeas, who had been a Roman officer, one who 
could lead them in the field as in the council-chamber; and from 


Ixxvi THE KEY, OF TRUIH 


the frontier-fortress of Tephrike, like the later Waldensians against 
the Piedmontese, they waged a most successful guerilla-war against 
the Empire’ 

Tephrike fell (873). But the backbone of Oriental Christianity was 
broken. What the Protestant Churches have achieved in Europe, 
that the Paulicians might have accomplished in the east. But from 
the ninth century onwards, wherever the Muslim met a Paulician, 
they met a friend; and the ultimate success of the most soldierly 
of the Mohammedan invading races was assured. It is the 
Osmanli Turks who have proved themselves to be that race. 

There remains an important Greek source of information with 
respect to the Paulicians, which has not been noticed because the 
sect is not referred to in it eo nomine. It was first published in 
the learned His/orta Haerestae Monothelitarum of Franc. Combefisius, 
ed. Paris, 1648, col. 317 fol., and is entitled, λόγος στηλιτευτικὸς 
κατὰ ᾿Αρμενίων, and ascribed to ‘our holy father Isaac, Catholicos of 
Great Armenia’®.’ A reference to the baptism of Constantine as 
having occurred 800 years before the date of composition fixes its 
date in the twelfth century ; and the author was clearly the contem- 
porary and possibly the companion in the discussion with Theorian 
under Manuel Comnenus of Nerses the Graceful, from whom we 
print some excerpts in our fifth appendix. The tone of this 
‘oration’ is throughout that of a renegade Armenian who had gone 
over to the Greeks, and who, in his anxiety to blacken his country- 
men, ascribes to the orthodox Armenian Church not only the errors 
of Eutyches and Dioscurus, of Timotheus Aelurus and Petrus 
Fullo, of Julian of Halicarnassus, and of Aphthartodoketism, but also 
the characteristic errors of the Paulicians. These are summarized 
in chap. viii, and partly agree with and partly supplement our 
other sources of information. 


(1) ‘Christ was thirty years old when he was baptized. There- 
fore they baptize no one until he is thirty years of age.’ 


That this was and is still the custom of the Thonraki is implied 
in the Aey, and may be inferred, as we have seen (p. 1) from the 
Acts of the Inquisition of Arkhwéli. The same conclusion results 


1 Translated from the excellent ‘ Abriss der Byzantinischen Kaisergeschichte’ 
in K. Krumbacher’s Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur, 2nd Edition, 
Pp: 97°. 

* An Aédrége of the same is attributed to 5. Nicon, and is printed among 
the notes in the Patres Apostolict of Cotelerius. The Greek text of Isaac, 
ch, viii, is printed in Appendix VII below. 


ISNAG EATHOLICOS:” C. “L1T50—1200 Ixxvil 


from the so-called teaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator, to which 
we elsewhere refer (p. cxi). John of Otzun (for reference see 
below on No. 5) implies that infant baptism had become the rule 
rather than the exception in his church before 7oo a.p., but he 
glances at the Paulician custom. 


(2) ‘Christ, after baptism, was not anointed with myrrh (μύρον) 
nor with holy oil, therefore let them not be anointed with myrrh or 
holy oil.’ 

In the baptismal service of the A’ey no allusion is made to the 
use of the holy oil, and the modern Paulicians reject it (see above, 
pp. xxvi and xlix). 


(3) ‘Christ was not baptized in a font, but in a river. Therefore 
let them not be baptized in a font.’ 

This seems to have been the practice of the Thonraki, judging 
from the same Acts of the Inquisition of Arkhwéli, wherein is 
described (see above, pp. ], li) a case of baptism in a river. The 
Key indicates that total immersion was the rule; but, during the 
best part of the year, immersion in a river was impossible in 
the highlands of Armenia, though feasible in the Mesopotamian 
districts. The Drdaché, ch. vii, prescribes baptism ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. 


(4) ‘ Christ, when he was about to be baptized, did not recite the 
Creed of the 318 Fathers of Nice. ‘Therefore shall they not make 
profession of it,’ 

It is clear from the Key that the Paulicians of Armenia rejected 
the entire theology of the great councils, and the Creed given on 
Ρ. 94, to be imparted by the catechist to the catechumen, is a coun- 
terblast to the Nicene Creed. In the first Paulician confession of 
Arkhwéli (see above, p. xxv) we read that the great councils 
were inspired by Satan ; and Isaac Catholicos indicates, towards the 
close of this eighth chapter, that the same people whose teaching 
is here summarized rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Incarnation. 


(5) ‘Christ, when he was about to be baptized, was not first made 
to turn to the west and renounce the Devil and blow upon him, 
nor again to turn to the east and make a compact with God. (For 
he was himself true God.) So let them not impose these things on 
those to be baptized.’ 

The baptismal service in chap. xxi of the Ay implies that the 
above is correct; and John of Otzun, in his Synodal oration 
(c. 718 a.p.) chap. v, glances at the Paulician practice in the 
following passage (opera John Otzun, Venet. 1834, p. 25): 1B) 


Ixxviii THE KEYCOR TRUE 


istud quoque praeterea cernimus: quod ab iis, qui baptizandi sunt, 
non exigunt guidam interrogationis modo de abrenuntiando diabolo 
iuramentum, neque sanctissimae Trinitatis professionem ... sed 
tantummodo ad fontis baptismum illos temerarie admittunt.’ The 
truth seems to be that John of Otzun was introducing these new 
practices into the ancient baptismal rite of the Armenians, and not 
that some were neglecting to observe them. In the same context 
he insists that, before baptism and before entering the baptistery, the 
priest should lay hands on the catechumen and anoint him—a 
practice which the orthodox Armenians have after all never adopted. 

(6) ‘Christ, after he had been baptized, did not partake of his 
own body. Nor let them so partake of it.’ 

In the Acts of the Inquisition of Arkhwéli (see above, p. xlix) 
the newly-baptized do not at once communicate. In the Greek 
and Roman and orthodox Armenian churches the host is put into 
the mouth of the child immediately it is baptized; and perhaps the 
delay interposed by the Paulicians was by way of protest against 
this superstitious custom. How long the interval was we know 
not, probably forty days. 


(7) ‘Christ, after he was baptized, fasted forty days, and only 
(that); and for 120 years such was the tradition which prevailed 
(in the Church). We, however, fast fifty days before (lit. near to) 
the Pascha.’ 

This means that the Paulicians kept a fast for forty days after 
the feast of the baptism of Jesus Christ, and that all Christians 
kept this fast during the first 120 years after Christ. The ‘we’ 
refers of course to Isaac and his party. To fast for fifty days 
before Easter was common in Syria at one time, and the Lenten 
fast was kept for various periods from forty hours to fifty days. 
The persistence of the name Quadragesima to denote it indicates 
that the Paulician fast was its original form. When the importance 
of the baptism was lost sight of in the Church, the earlier fast 
became a fast before Easter. The orthodox Armenians still 
identify Christmas with the Baptism. 


(8) ‘Christ did not hand down to us the teaching to celebrate 
the mystery of the offering of the bread in church, but in an 
ordinary house and sitting at ἃ common table. So then let them 
not sacrifice the offering of bread in churches,’ 

The modern -Paulicians (see above, p. xlix) celebrate their 
Eucharist in a cellar or stable, or wherever else they can. 


(9) ‘It was after supper, when his disciples were sated (xopra- 


HIS SUMMARY OF PAULICIAN TENETS _ Ixxix 


σθῆναι), that Christ gave them to eat of his own body. Therefore 
let them first eat meats and be sated, and then let them partake of 
the mysteries.’ 

This proves that the Paulicians kept up the primitive custom 
of an agapfé preceding the Eucharist for centuries after the great 
Church abandoned it. So St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 21) deprecates the 
practice of coming hungry to the Eucharist, no less than that of 
coming drunk. All were, by sharing, to have had enough to eat 
and drink, and no more. 


(10) ‘Christ, although he was crucified for us, yet did not enjoin 
us to adore the cross, as the Gospel testifies. Let them therefore 
not adore the cross.’ 

This is a point to which not only the Δεν but all the sources 
abundantly testify. 


(11) ‘The cross was of wood. Let them therefore not adore 
a cross of gold or silver or iron or bronze or stone.’ 
To this point also the Ay testifies. 


(12) ‘Christ wore neither humeral nor amice nor maniple nor 
stole nor chasuble. Therefore let them not wear these garments.’ 

So the Greek source, Scor. xiv, asserts that the ‘priests’ of the 
Paulicians whom they called synecdemt and nofardZ dressed and 
looked and lived exactly like every one else. The only bit of ritual 
hinted at in the Ay is the reservation for the bishop of a particular 
seat (p. 107). The orthodox Armenian Church has ever been 
almost barbaric in its wealth of ecclesiastical vestments. Yet any 
priest may assist in the service of the mass in his plain dress. 


(13) ‘Christ did not institute the prayers of the liturgy and of 
the holy epiphanies, and all the other prayers for every action and 
‘every hour. Let them therefore not repeat them or be hallowed 
by these holy prayers.’ 

So Nerses (see Appendix, p. 155), says: ‘Liber Rituale et 
canones, qui in eo continentur, crucis et ecclesiae benedictio, et 
alia, non sunt admittenda.’ This book of rituals for ali occa- 
sions was called among the Armenians Mashtotz, from the name 
of the ninth-century compiler. The Paulicians, according to 
Nerses, rejected it as not being the work of the ancient fathers. 


(14) ‘Christ did not ordain (ἐχειροτόνησεν) patriarchs and metro- 
politans and bishops and presbyters and deacons and monks, nor 
their several prayers (i.e. services of ordination). Let them there- 
fore not be ordained nor blessed with these prayers.’ 


Ire DHE KEY ΘΕ DRUGH 


So the Δεν deprecates the idea of any hierarchy in the Church 
(p.105). And it is this that underlies the tirade of Gregory Magis- 
tros (p. 144). So, in the Albigensian Church, the lowest deacon 
could replace the highest bishop in every and any ecclesiastical 
function. 


(15) ‘Christ did not enjoin the building of churches and the 
furnishing of holy tables, and their anointing with myrrh and 
hallowing with ten thousand prayers. He did no such thing. Let 
them not do it either.’ 

So Nerses (see above on No. 12) states that they, the Paulicians, 
would not formally consecrate churches (ecclesiae benedictio). The 
Greek sources (Scor. xi) testify that they had proseuchae only. It 
must not be forgotten, however, that, from the reign of Constantine 
onwards, the cruellest edicts forbad the use of their churches to all 
heretical sects, and ordered their destruction. However, in this 
particular also the Paulicians preserved the primitive teaching 
of the Christian Church as expressed by Origen in the words 
(C. Celsum, vill. 20): φεύγομεν βωμοὺς καὶ ἀγάλματα καὶ νεὼς ἱδρύεσθαι. 
On this point there are many golden passages to be read in Origen, 
viz., C. Celsum, i. 5, vill. 17, 18, 19, 20. The Paulicians, as Nerses 
Shnorhali testified (p. 155), limited the church to the worshippers 
met together in Christ’s name, and so did the Albigeois. The 
modern Paulicians (see above, p. xlix) celebrate the Eucharist in 
a stable on a common table of wood. 


(16) ‘Christ did not fast on the fourth day of the week and on 
the Paraskevé. Let them not fast either.’ 


So Aristaces testifies (p. 140) that the Paulicians rejected ‘the 
ordinance of fasts.’ 


(17) ‘Christ did not enjoin us to pray towards the east. Let 
them not either pray towards the east.’ 


The custom of turning to the east in prayer was so ancient in 
Christianity, being already attested by second-century fathers, that 
it is surprising, though not impossible, that the Paulicians had not 
adopted it’. It is hardly a charge that Isaac would invent. If it 
be true, it is another proof of the extremely primitive character of 
their Church. In ch. xiv, col. 384, Isaac condemns the Armenians 
for re-baptizing the Greeks (Ῥωμαίους) ; but the orthodox Armenians 


‘ Or had they dropped it out of opposition to the Sun worship of the 
Manicheans ? 


JOHN OF OTZUN’S TESTIMONY, C. 700 Ixxxi 


probably did this no less than the Paulicians, so we need not sup- 
pose that he herein refers to them. In the summary, however, of 
Armenian errors which follows (col. 385) are some which must 
have been peculiar to the Paulicians, e.g. that they did not keep 
the Feast of the Annunciation; that they refused to adore the 
Images of Christ, and of the mother of God, and of the saints, 
and called them idols; that ‘they denied the nativity of Christ,” 
which must mean that they regarded the Baptism as the real 
Nativity of Christ. The orthodox Armenians themselves retained 
so much of the original Adoptionist character of their Church as 
always to keep Christmas and the Baptism on one and the same 
day, Jan. 6'. The above summary is so terse, so instinct with 
the religious radicalism which must characterize every Christian 
system built on the Gospels alone, that we may fairly suppose that 
Isaac copied it? directly from some Paulician source, in which the 
principles of the sect were compendiously set out and defended. 
Being himself an Armenian, Isaac may well have had access to 
such a source. 

John of Otzun (c. 680-725) wrote a separate ‘discourse against 
the Paulicians’ eo nomzne; of it I print the relevant portions in my 
Fifth Appendix. But in his synodal oration there are many 
covert references to them, beside the one noticed in No. 5 of Isaac’s 
list. And they are moreover introduced in such a way as to indi- 
cate that in his day the Armenian Church was still in transition 
from its older Adoptionist form to the later orthodox or Caesarean 
type; so that the traces of old belief and practice were still common 
among the clergy. Thus he begins his review of the newer system 
which he was seeking to impose with these words (ed. Venice, 1834, 
p-15): ‘I perceive numberless irregularities in many matters of 
deep moment, not only among the laity, but among the clergy as 
well, nay among the bishops (//. primates or leaders) of our 
Church. With one language and by the help of one preacher 
(i.e. Gregory the Illuminator) we have started forth on the way of 
truth. Yet now we pursue many paths and tracks. Not only in 
our lives but in our forms of glorifying God (or ‘in our doxologies ’) 


1 See further on this point below, p. clii foll. 

2 The methodical manner in which the points are grouped in itself indicates 
that Isaac has embodied a Paulician document in his text. Their supreme 
tenet—the baptism of Jesus—comes first, and their teaching about baptism 
occupies the first seven sections. Then follow two concerning the Eucharist. 
The rest of the clauses convey their conceptions of priesthood, public worship, 
and of the Christian life in general. 


iE 


Ixxxii THE KEY ΘΕ ΤΣ ΠΗ 


we depart from what is correct in many and various ways.... 
And so it is that when we congregate before the God of peace to 
ask for peace, we are disturbed and confused; and, just as if we 
were aliens to one another in race and tongue, we fall into discord 
and faction, as though we were savages one to the other.’ 

The admission of Aristaces (see Appendix, p. 132) that the 
Thonraki, like the orthodox Armenians, were descendants of 
Gregory the Illuminator, well agrees with the above. There 
follows in John a passage, which, as it concerns not a few of 
the points enumerated by Isaac Catholicos, I transcribe 
from the faithful Latin version of the Mekhitarists (ed. Venice, 
Ῥ. 17): - 

‘Interea et istud nobis videre obtigit, quod quibusdam in locis 
Altaria et Baptisteria non extruuntur iuxta beatorum Patrum 
nostrorum praeceptum traditionemque, ambo lapidea et immobilia 
condendo; sed ligneum ac mobile altare quidam erigunt, et con- 
suetum perficiunt lavacri ritum pro necessitate, ac pro tempore, et 
loco, per quodlibet vas prae manibus in promptu occurrens (cp. 
above, p. xlix), suorum excusationem errorum pueriliter quidem, et 
imperite adferentes, si quidquam priscis temporibus festinanter ab 
aliquo nostratum fuerit opus: a Christo, exempli gratia, qui ad 
communem mensam in caenaculo corporis et sanguinis sui Sacra- 
mentum confecit ; et a Philippo, qui, ut ut accidit, Eunuchum in 
quavis aqua baptizavit. Similiter, aiunt, de aliis quoque Apostolis 
demonstrat historia, quod diversimode ab invicem, et quomodo- 
cumque tempus poscebat utrumque conficiebant Sacramentum. 
Sanctus quoque Illuminator noster ligneum, inquiunt, secum cir- 
cumferebat altare (or table); atque in fluviis rivulisque ubicunque 
advenisset, baptismum peragebat.’ 

A more direct commentary on the charges of Isaac Catholicos, 
Nos. 3, 8, and 15, could not be than these remarks of John of 
Otzun afford; and it would almost seem as if Isaac had preserved 
to us a Paulician document, not of the twelfth, but of the seventh 
or eighth century. It is anyhow clear that in the seventh century 
the Adoptionists of Armenia made exactly the same appeal to the 
example of Christ and to the usages of the [liuminator which they 
made in the tenth to the twelfth centuries, and which meets us 
everywhere in Zhe Key of Truth. John himself admits the anti- 
quity of the usages he condemns in the words, ‘ si quidquam priscis 
temporibus festinanter ab aliquo nostratum fuerit opus,’ where the 
word aliquo must refer to Gregory the Illuminator. 


AGAPE AND EUCHARIST NOT SEPARATED Ixxxiii 


In further criticism of their constant appeal to Christ’s example 
John continues thus :— 

‘Quibus dicendum est: O vos, si universa a Christo acta nobis 
ad exemplum adducenda essent, ergo oporteret, et triginta annorum 
unumquemque baptizari (cp. Isaac’s document, No. 1), et octiduum 
circumcidi (cp. the name-giving of the Paulicians, p. 87 of the Key), 
et tertia die resurgere, et quadragesima die in caelum conscendere 
(cp. Narekatsi’s ribaldry about Smbat, p. 128): hoc namque modo 
haec Christo peragere placuit. Item quoque post coenam hora 
vespertina mysterio communicari; quoniam Dominus, ubi vetus 
illud perficiens obsignavit, ibi per suum quoque novi testamenti 
fundamenta iecit. Nunc autem multas horas interponimus cor- 
poream inter spiritualemque mensam, et octidui baptizamur.’ 

It is remarkable that some of these points were just those on 
which the persons denounced by Isaac Catholicos laid stress ; 
namely the baptism in the thirtieth year, and the participation in 
the Eucharist immediately after an agapé. It would appear that 
the more thorough-going of the old Adoptionist believers had 
already been excluded in the days of John of Otzun from the 
church over which he presided; and now formed a distinct sect, 
being called Paulicians after Paul of Samosata. And John alludes 
to customs of the latter as a reductio ad absurdum of the arguments 
of the less rigorous Adoptionists who still lingered in the Church; 
half and half adherents of the older religion, who had _ perhaps 
abandoned the Adoptionist Christology, and had adopted infant 
baptism and separated the Eucharist from the agapé, yet in other 
respects clung to what was ancient. 

It is certain from the teaching of Gregory the Illuminator (see 
p. cxi), that the original practice of the Armenians was to baptize 
at thirty years of age; and, from the teaching of the twelve apostles, 
we know that the union of Eucharist with agapé long continued 
in the Church. The language of the Drdaché, ch. 10, is almost 
identical with that of Isaac Catholicos: μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι οὕτως 
εὐχαριστήσατε. St. Basil, 2. xciii. (iii. 187 a) testifies that, in the 
fourth century, it was still usual in Alexandria and Egypt to cele- 
brate the Communion in one’s own house: ἕκαστος καὶ τῶν ἐν λαῷ 
τελούντων ὡς ἐπὶ TO πλεῖστον ἔχει κοινωνίαν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅτε 
βούλεται μεταλαμβάνει Ov ἑαυτοῦ. And Socrates, 27. 2. ν. 22, testifies 
that the Egyptians in the neighbourhood of Alexandria and in 
the Thebaid kept up the agapé before the Eucharist and had 
not severed them: ἐν σαββάτῳ μὲν ποιοῦνται συνάξεις, οὐχ ws ἔθος δὲ 

fee 


Ixxxiv THE REY “OF (LRUGH 


Χριστιανοῖς τῶν μυστηρίων μεταλαμβάνουσι, μετὰ yap TO εὐωχηθῆναι Kal παν- 
τοίων ἐδεσμάτων ἐμφορηθῆναι, περὶ ἑσπέραν προσφέροντες τῶν μυστηρίων μετα- 
λαμβάνουσιν. I owe these references to Mr. Brightman’s Liturgies, 
vol. i. p. 509. In the Armenian canons of St. Sahak (p. 96, ed. 
Venice, 1853) there is a trace of the same usage among the 
Armenians of the fourth and fifth centuries. 

Canon τῇ. ‘ The priests shall in unanimity (or all together) per- 
form the service (or ministration), and the offering (07 mass) of the 
agapés. Without reading the Gospel let the priests not venture to 
present [the offering]. But if any one be found in a state of surfeit 
(i.e, having overeaten or overdrunk) before the offering (or mass) 
is made, in the offering let him not dare to take the bread, and let 
him be removed by his fellows.’ 

Canon 18. ‘Likewise the laity (Zz. cultivators) who have been 
invited to the agapé, shall share in the service and offering (or 
mass). Prior to the offering let them not venture to eat and drink 
in their own houses. And if any one has beforehand eaten and 
drunk in his own house, let him not dare to come to the offering 
of bread, that there be no condemnation of himself and insult to 
the spiritual feast ; since such perversity is vain... «ἢ 

These two canons indicate the custom of an Agapé and Eucharist 
following such as we have before us in the New Testament. They 
are not directed against the eating of a supper in church before 
the Eucharist; but firstly against the priests overeating at the 
supper, and secondly against the laity eating that supper in their 
own houses and then coming into church to partake of the 
Eucharist separately. The reading of the Gospel is to intervene 
between the supper and the Eucharist, but nothing else is pre- 
scribed. The Paulician Eucharist was similar. In the time of 
John of Otzun the agapé still went on, but separated by an interval 
of time from the Eucharist. 

That the orthodox Armenian Church in his day began the fast 
of forty days immediately from the Epiphany on Jan. 6th, cannot 
be inferred from John of Otzun, who, in his fifth and sixth canons 
(ed. Venice, 1834, p. 59), distinguishes indeed the ‘ holy forty days 
of Zatik’ (Easter), which preceded Pentecost, from the ‘holy 
quadragesimal fast’ which followed the Epiphany, but does not 
explicitly say that the latter was an Epiphany fast. When in 
the Armenian canons of Sahak (p. 111) we have specific mention 
of the ‘Festival of the Holy Epiphany and τῇς forty days,’ 
the feast of ὑπαπαντή called Quadragesimae de Epiphania in the 


CANONS OF SAHAK, C. 425 Ixxxv 


Peregrinatio of St. Sylvia is referred to. It is possible that this 
feast originally marked the close of the Lord’s fast of forty days 
and the beginning of his ministry, but we have no evidence on the 
point. The Armenians also kept, and still keep, a fast of five 
days or more called Arhadjavor, preliminary to the fast of our 
Lord. This originally commemorated the preaching of repentance 
by Jonah according to the Armenians themselves; but its real 
significance is very doubtful. Perhaps it at first commemorated 
the preaching of repentance by John the Baptist. The forty days’ 
fast was so strictly kept by some in the days of John of Otzun 
that they passed the Sabbaths and Lord’s Days during its con- 
tinuance in sadness and penitence, without celebrating the 
Eucharist. John condemns this custom; and Gregory of Narek 
seems to glance at it when (see p. 126) he taxes the Thonraki with 
reckoning the Lord’s day the same as any other. ‘In tristitia et 
poenitentia transigunt, non secus ac reliquos quinque dies praeteritos 
...Inhac die Christus mortem coercuit, secum ex morte humanam 
educens naturam,’ says John of Otzun. 

The strictures of Isaac Catholicos are largely borne out by the 
review of the ecclesiastical condition of Armenia with which Nerses 
of Lambron, his contemporary, concludes his commentary on the 
Armenian mass. Hierarchy, celebration of mass, ritual, observance 
of church feasts—all this was, he says, confined to the monasteries. 
The common people would not build churches, and if there were 
any they had been built by the Francs, or were derelict Armenian 
churches taken possession of by them. Even in the Armenian 
court the Armenian nobles could not go to the sacrament in 
church for fear of the populace, who rejected bishops in favour of 
elders, neglected the Lord’s day and would permit no feasts in 
honour of saints, no church vestments, no ritual. Dulaurier has 
translated this striking chapter in his crusading documents. It 
entirely confirms the document given in Isaac Catholicos, and the 
two sources taken together prove that the Paulician heresy was as 
rife in the twelfth as it had been in the fifth when Lazar of Pharp 
was accused of it'. And, like Lazar, Isaac Catholicos seems to 
have known it not under the name Paulicianism, but simply as 
a heresy immemorial among his countrymen. 

So far our chief aim has been to prove that the correspondence 
of The Key of Truth on the one hand with the old Armenian, and 
on the other with the Greek sources of information about the 


1 See below, p. cviii. 


Ixxxvi THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Paulicians, is so close that we cannot hesitate to recognize in it an 
authoritative manual of that Church. The Thonraki were the 
Armenian branch of that Church, since both Gregory of Narek’ 
and Gregory Magistros identify them. 

The problem which still confronts us is a more fundamental 
one, namely, what was the relation of this Paulician Church to the 
Great Church? Was it a paraphyadic outgrowth of the post- 
Nicene Church of Asia Minor and, as regards the Thonraki, of the 
orthodox Armenian Church? Or was it the survival of an early 
form of the Apostolic Church, so that its origin lay far back 
behind the Nicene Council? Was it Protestantism or opposition 
to what were regarded as the abuses of the Great Church, a return 
to lost evangelical standards consequent upon the diffusion of the 
Gospel texts; and in Armenia did this specially result from the 
diffusion of an excellent vernacular translation of the New Testa- 
ment? Or was it rather the case that these early standards had 
never been lost? In the latter case Paulicianism was just the fruit 
of an inevitable antagonism felt by an older and simpler form of 
church towards the dogmatic and ritualistic developments which at 
once began when, under Constantine, the Great Church got the 
upper hand. The answer to this question has been in some 
measure forestalled in our discussion of the document preserved by 
Isaac the Catholicos. We shall now try to argue it on still wider 
and deeper grounds. 

This question cannot be satisfactorily answered until we have 
examined and cleared up the relation of the Paulician system of 
belief and observance exhibited to us in the Aey to ancient 
Christianity in general, and until we have determined to what stage 
of the Church’s development and history it belongs. This is the 
more necessary because of the very conflicting accounts of the 
antiquity of the sect. For example, John of Otzun, the Catholicos, 
writing in 720, not only hints that their heresy was a rehabilitation 
of what was very old, but seems to connect them with heresies 
which were already ramifying in Armenia under Nerses in the 
middle of the fourth century. And we shall presently adduce 


1 Dr. Karapet Ter-Mkrttschian, p. 86, notices that Gregory of Narek, in his 
famous book of prayers, entitles one of his chapters ‘Discourse about the 
Church against the Manicheans, that is the Paulicians.. In it Gregory 
enumerates the functions and elements of the Church as a visible edifice, 
and explains their significance. He is of course combating the Thonraki 
teaching—that the real Church was not of wood or stone, but the invisible 
communion of the faithful (see Appendix V, p. 155). 


PAULIGCIAN TENETS- PRIMITIVE Ixxxvii 


similar evidence from the writings of Lazar of Pharp in the fifth 
century. The Greek writer again, Zigabenus, declares that Sergius 
Tychicus flourished only 500 years after St. Paul, i.e. about 550; 
if so, Constantine Sylvanus, the founder of the Paulicians, must be 
put back at the least to 450. On the other hand, Pseudo-Photius 
dates the appearance of Sergius 700 years after St. Paul; while 
Peter of Sicily, who used the same sources, dates it 800 after. 

An examination of the Ay itself goes far to confirm the state- 
ments of John of Otzun and of Zigabenus ; for note that in it belief 
and observance go hand in hand, and are so closely interde- 
pendent as to preclude the idea that the Church, whose book it 
was, was in any way an eclectic one. Everything grows organically 
out of their conception of Jesus, as a man, not divine, but created, 
and yet not like other men, since he was the new Adam, without 
sin. Purely human, though free from sin, Jesus came to John to 
be baptized in the Jordan, when he had reached his thirtieth year. 
Then his sinless nature, which had triumphed over all temptations 
and kept all the Father’s commandments, received its reward. 
The Spirit of the Father descends on him, fills him with the 
Godhead, and invests him with authority; and a voice from 
heaven proclaims him to be the chosen Son in whom God is 
well pleased, and who, according to the older form of the text of 
Luke, is on that day begotten by the Father, Then it was that 
Jesus received all the high prerogatives which raised him above 
ordinary humanity, though always without making him God and 
Creator. For till then he had been, except in respect of his 
sinlessness, in no wise higher than Moses or Enoch. Filled with 
the spirit of adoption, the elect Christ is forthwith led up on to the 
mountain to enjoy, for forty days, the mystery of intercourse with 
the Father; and this feast of divine converse to which, after baptism, 
Christ was at once admitted, is the archetype of the sacramental 
meal for the reception of which baptism qualifies us *. 


1 The antiquity of the idea worked out in ch. v of the Aey is apparent, if we 
compare the similar account in Philo (Vzta Moss, iii. § 2) of the forty days’ stay 
of Moses on the mountain, which for him, as for Jesus, was preliminary to the 
ministry. Ἔδει δὲ πρότερον, ὥσπερ τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ τὸ σῶμα καθαρεῦσαι, μηδενὸς 
πάθους προσαψάμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἁγνεῦσαι ἀπὸ πάντων boa τῆς θνητῆς ἐστι φύσεως, 
σιτίων καὶ ποτῶν καὶ τῆς πρὸς γυναῖκας ὁμιλίας. ἀλλὰ ταύτης μὲν ἐκ πολλῶν 
χρόνων κατεφρόνησε, καὶ σχεδὸν ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξατο προφητεύειν καὶ θεοφο- 
ρεῖσθαι, προσῆκον ἡγούμενος ἕτοιμον ἐμπαρέχειν ἀεὶ τοῖς χρησμοῖς ἑαυτόν" σιτίων 
τε καὶ ποτῶν ἐπὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας ἑξῆς ἠλόγησε, δῆλον ὅτι τροφὰς ἔχων 
ἀμείνους τὰς διὰ θεωρίας, αἷς ἄνωθεν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ καταπνεόμενος τὴν μὲν διάνοιαν τὸ 


Ixxxvili THE KEY OF TRUTH 


In such a scheme as this there is clearly no room for the view 
that Jesus was born the incarnate God. A man fore-ordained to be 
sent from God, to become the vehicle of the Holy Spirit, and by his 
example and teaching to save men from their sins, this Jesus might 
be, and in fact was, according to this scheme; but it absolutely 
excludes from the outset the Alexandrine theology, which has come 
to be the only teaching of the Catholic Church. From the stand- 
point of the Ay there was no incarnation of Jesus other than his 
possession by the Holy Spirit, in his thirtieth year, on the occasion 
of his baptism by St. John. 

Of this simple Adoptionist Christology the observances of the 
Paulicians, as detailed in the Key, are the organic outgrowth. At 
a mature age, that is, about thirty, the catechumen is baptized. 
By that time he has come to a knowledge of his sin, original and 
operative, and has repented of both. The age of reflection has 
been reached!; the first heats of youth are past, and his natural 
instincts are brought under control. Before a man reaches this 
age of discretion no remission of sins can be effective and real; 
nor is any baptism other than an empty and superstitious form, 
which precedes, instead of following upon the awakening of the 
individual conscience, upon repentance of sin and faith in Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God. Through baptism the man becomes 
a Christian, and is admitted to partake, as was Jesus, of the 
heavenly meal. In commemoration of the forty days’ fast of Jesus 
he keeps holy forty days. Here we have outlined the two chief 
sacraments. The catechism mentions a third, namely penitence. 
This was probably ordained in view of sins committed after 
baptism. It was, like baptism and the Eucharist, only to be 
conferred by the elect one who had received through the Church, 
from Jesus Christ, the power of binding and loosing. 

Whether the mass of the believers progressed further in their 
imitation of Christ than is implied in their baptism and participa- 
tion of the eucharistic food, cannot be ascertained. Probably not, 
as the catechism mentions only the three sacraments as necessary 
to salvation. Election or ordination, of which the Key so fully 
details the rite, was not a sacrament at all. If we may venture on 


πρῶτον, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐβελτιοῦτο. And, as Jesus regained 
on the mount the outward glory which Adam lost, so Moses ἡμέραις ὕστερον, 
ὡς ἐλέχθη, τετταράκοντα κατέβαινε πολὺ καλλίων τὴν ὄψιν ἢ OTE ἀνῇει. 

1 The whole scheme of the Adoptionist Church recalls the Ideal Polity of 
Plato, wherein the citizens were to be initiated in the study of dialectic in their 
thirtieth year and not before, because until then their characters were not fixed. 


AND WERE NOT LATE AND ECLECTIC Ixxxix 


an inference, we may say that it was a solemn initiation through 
which the Christian not only completed his imitation of Christ, but 
became a Christ himself. It authorized him to preach the word as 
Christ preached it; to suffer for itas he suffered. It was the baptism 
with his baptism. As a Christ, the elect one could apparently 
dispense his body to the faithful, saying, ‘This is my body. And 
he alone could baptize, or even perform the less important rite of 
name-giving. 

It is clear at a glance that Zhe Key of Truth presents a picture 
to us of a Christian Church, rigorously Adoptionist in its doctrine 
and observances; and as such it is of first-rate importance to the 
student of Christian institutions, For though we have sources enough 
from which to glean a fairly detailed knowledge of Adoptionist 
tenets, we now for the first time learn what were the rites, the disci- 
pline, the ordinal, and the general organization of a Church holding 
these tenets. And as these tenets were unquestionably more ancient 
than any others, we get back through Zhe Key of Truth to a more 
just and primitive representation of the earliest form of Christian 
community than the later Catholic Church provides us with. Let 
us now compare its teaching with the few memorials or records 
of Adoptionist teaching which the great Church has allowed to 
survive. 

The Shepherd of Hermas, a document of the Roman Church, 
composed long before the New Testament canon was fixed, is 
similar in its teaching to the second chapter of the εν. Therein 
in simil. 5. 5. we read as follows: ‘God made his Holy Spirit, 
which pre-existed and created all creation, to enter” and dwell in 
the flesh (i.e. human body) which he approved. This flesh 
therefore, in which the Holy Spirit took up its dwelling, served the 
Spirit well in holiness and purity, having never in any way polluted 
the Spirit. Therefore, because it had lived well and purely, and 
had laboured with the Spirit and worked therewith in every matter, 
conversing bravely and manfully, God chose (εΐλατο) it to be 
participator along with the Holy Spirit. For this flesh walked as 
pleased God, because it was not polluted upon earth, having the 


1 Compare also the baptismal prayer on p. 100. 

2 Such is the force of κατῴκισεν εἰς σάρκα. The Ebiontte Gospel (Epiphan. 
Haer. 30, 13) related that the Holy Spirit was seen in the form of a dove 
coming down and entering (κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης) into Jesus. So the 
most ancient Arm. MSS. of the Gospels (e. g. Lord Crawford’s) in Luke ili. 22, 
after καταβῆναι add h Guha εἶν: = καὶ ἀναπαύεσθαι. So the old Georgian 
text renders, in Matt. iii. 16, ἐρχόμενον, ‘it came and stayed on him.’ 


ΧΟ THE KEY ΘῈ DRUGH 


Holy Spirit. God therefore took (ἔλαβε) into counsel the Son and 
the angels in their glory, to the end that this flesh, having blame- 
lessly served the Spirit, might furnish’, as it were, a place of 
tabernacling (for the Spirit), and might not seem to have lost the 
reward of its service. For all flesh shall receive the reward which 
shall be found without stain or spot, and in it the Holy Spirit shall 
make its home.’ 

We could hardly find a clearer expression than the above 
extract affords of the two cardinal doctrines of the Ay, namely, 
that the man Jesus, being flesh, was, because of his progress in 
moral excellence, chosen by God and endowed with authority 
and lordship by the Holy Spirit, which in Jordan came down and 
dwelt in him: and secondly that the faithful who acquit them- 
selves, like Jesus, nobly, shall receive from God the same guerdon, 
the same grace of the Spirit as he. As Prof. Harnack® remarks : 
‘In the Adoptionist Christology the parallel between Jesus and all 
the faithful who possess the Spirit and are sons of God, is clearly 
and fully expressed.’ 

Bearing in mind the vogue which Zhe Shepherd of Hermas 
enjoyed in the earliest Roman Church, we are not surprised to 
learn from Eusebius (7. 1. v. 28) that the same teaching was still 
popular, though already condemned as heretical, in the third 
century, under the teachers Theodotus and Artemon. The 
followers of the latter asserted with some truth that theirs was the 
doctrine which all the ancients had inherited by tradition and 
taught; and that the truth of the preaching (kerugma) had been 
preserved until the times of Victor, by whose successor Zephyrinus 
(190 A.p.) the truth had for the first time been counterfeited. 
Their claim was no idle one, if, as competent teachers have 
acknowledged, the Adoptionist Christology is that of the Synoptic 
Gospels themselves’. This claim of the followers of Artemon, that 


1 The Greek text of Hermas has iva καὶ ἡ σὰρξ αὕτη... σχῇ τόπον τινὰ 
κατασκηνώσεως. Of course the sense is ‘that this flesh (i.e. the man Jesus) 
might furnish in itself a resting-place for the Spirit,’ and so win the reward, 
not that he might have somewhere to lay his head, as Prof. Harnack and Dr. 
von Gebhardt suggest when, in their note ad Joc., they compare Matt. viii. 20. 
Probably παρασχῇ should be read instead of σχῇ. The real parallel is not 
Matt. viii. 20, but John i. 14 ὁ λόγος σὰρὲ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. So 
Archelaus (see p. c, below) speaks of the ‘ hadztaculum illud, quod ex Maria 
fuerat effectum.’ 

* Dogmen-Gesch., p. 183. 

® See Harnack, Dogmen-Gesch., ed. 3, Bd. i. p. 652. After distinguishing 
the Adoptionist view from the Pneumatic (i.e. that which saw in Jesus God 


SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.  EBIONITES XCi 


they were the representatives of the original apostolic tradition, 
agrees with the similar claim everywhere put forward in the pages 
of the Aey. It was also a claim which, in the tenth century, was 
acknowledged to be just by erudite members of the orthodox 
Armenian Church, and also by the higher clergy of the Syrian 
catholicos'. We are certainly not in a position to-day to impugn 
its validity. 

In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue (ch. 48) with Tryphon the Adop- 
tionist view is clearly expressed, and the Jew is exhorted at the 
least to accept it, in case the Christian interlocutor is unable to 
convince him that Jesus was the pre-existent Son of the Maker 
of all things, himself actually God, and only man as born of the 
Virgin. ‘Even if I cannot demonstrate so much as that,’ says 
Tryphon to the Jew, ‘you will at least admit that Jesus is the 
Messiah of God, in case he can be shown to have been born as a man 
of men, and be proved to have been raised by election (κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν) 
to the dignity of messiahship. For there are, my friends,’ he 
continues, ‘some of our (or your) persuasion who admit that he is 
the Messiah, but declare him to have been a man of men. I do 
not agree with them,’ he adds, ‘even though they speak from 
a basis of much opinion held in common by them with myself ; 
because we have been commanded by Christ himself to acquiesce 
not in human teachings, but only in the messages of the blessed 
prophets and in his teachings.’ 

The Jewish interlocutor in Justin’s Dialogue takes no objection 
to this admission on the part of the Christian that the divinity of 
Christ rested on a prophetic rather than on an historical basis. He 
merely answers that, in his opinion, it was much the more reasonable 
view that Jesus had been born simply human, and had been 
anointed by way of election®, and so had become the Messiah. 
‘For we all,’ he says, ‘expect the Messiah to be born a man 
of men.’ 


incarnate in the Virgin’s womb), Harnack proceeds thus: ‘ The holy Scriptures 
might be appealed to in favour of both views. But those (Scriptures) were 
distinctly at an advantage considering the circumstances of the time (150-250 
A.D.) which recognized in Christ the incarnation of a separate divine being. 
Just as certainly those (Scriptures) were true, from the standpoint of the 
Synoptic Gospels, which saw in Jesus a man chosen out by God to be his 
Son, and filled with the Spirit.’ 

1 See p. 126, n. 2, and p. 145, the words beginning, ἡ Thou hadst written...’ 

2 Kar’ ἐκλογὴν or κατὰ προκοπὴν κεχρίσθαι. The latter idea is a Stoic one 
expressed in Stoical phrase. 


xcil THE KEY OF TRUG 


We see that this Jew took up the position which is ascribed by 
Hippolytus in his PAzlosophumena'* to the Ebionites. I quote the 
Latin version of Duncker :—‘ Ebionaei autem consentiunt quidem 
mundum ab eo, qui re vera Deus est, factum esse; quae autem ad 
Christum pertinent, consimiliter Cerintho et Carpocrati fabulantur. 
Moribus Iudaicis utuntur, secundum legem dictitantes sese iustifi- 
cari; et Iesum dicentes iustificatum esse, cum observaverit legem ’. 
Quapropter et Christum (i.e. unctum) Dei vocatum esse Jesum, cum 
nemo ex reliquis observaverit legem; etenim si quis alius fecisset, 
quae in lege praescripta sunt, ille evasisset Christus. Posse autem 
et sese ipsos, similiter cum fecerint, Christos evadere; etenim et 
ipsum hominem aeque atque omnes esse dicunt.’ Here the 
Christology is sufficiently like that of the Aey, in spite of its Jewish 
tinge; and the idea that a man, by fulfilling all righteousness, 
actually becomes a Christ is the same elevated thought which 
inspired the Paulicians, and is more or less explicitly worked out 
in the Key, 

In his very next chapter Hippolytus speaks of Theodotus, whom 
we have already mentioned. ‘The description of his position tallies 
exactly with that of the Aey, and we now quote it: ‘Theodotus 
autem quidam natione Byzantius introduxit haeresim novam *, 
docens ea quae sunt de origine universi, congrua ex parte doc- 
trinae verae Ecclesiae ; cum a Deo omnia profecta esse consentit. 
Christum autem, e Gnosticorum et Cerinthi Ebionisque schola 
avellens, ait tali quodam modo apparuisse: et Iesum quidem esse 
hominem ex virgine natum secundum voluntatem Patris. Cum 
vixisset autem eodem modo quo universi homines, et cum piissimus 
fuisset, postea in baptismo ad Iordanem cepisse Christum superne 
delapsum in specie columbae. Quapropter non prius potestates in 
eo viguisse, quam postquam is qui delapsus erat, emicuerit in illo 
Spiritus, quem esse Christum appellat. Deum autem nunquam 
hunc factum esse volunt per descensum Spiritus.’ We shall see 
presently that the dogmatic position of Archelaus, the early fourth- 
century opponent of Manes, was absolutely the same as that here 
ascribed to Theodotus. 

1 Bk. vii. 34. 

? Cp. the prayer on p. 108 of the Aey, ‘Christ Jesus kept thy ineffable 
commands,’ &c.; and p. 14, ‘ Forasmuch as the created man, Jesus, was very 
faithful to his Father, for this reason the Father bestowed on him a name of 
praise which is above every name.’ 


5. It is impossible to attach more than a controversial value to this statement 
of Hippolytus that Theodotus’ faith was new. 


THEODOTUS AND THE ALOGI XCiil 


The additional details about Theodotus which we glean from 
Epiphanius, Waer. 54, who followed the lost Syx/agma of Hippolytus, 
render the sameness of his teaching with that of the Ay still more 
apparent, for he shows that Theodotus accepted both the Gospel of 
John and the belief in the miraculous birth as related by Luke. 
He even made special use of the exordium of the fourth Gospel, 
in which, however, he interpreted the Logos as the Holy Spirit; 
and, here strictly in accord with Zhe Shepherd of Hermas, ex- 
plained the words ‘The Word became flesh’ to refer to the 
endowment of Jesus with the Holy Spirit in the Jordan. 

In Luke i. 35 Theodotus eliminated or laid no stress on the 
words, ‘ Wherefore also, in order to guard against the supposition 
that the power of the Most High really entered into the womb of 
the Virgin. In other words, though the conception of Jesus was 
a special providence, and was as such announced by the angel, it 
was no Divine Incarnation. The Paulicians also accepted the 
Gospel of John along with the Synoptics, and must have used the 
same exegesis as Theodotus. Since the fourth Gospel was the 
sheet-anchor of the rival or Alexandrine school of Christology, 
its inclusion in the canon of Theodotus proves no less the depth 
and sincerity of his Adoptionist faith than the ineluctable religious 
value and literary merit of that Gospel, which could thus force its 
way into circles of the faithful, to whom it might by many be 
thought to be alien. And it may be that, after all, the fourth 
Gospel was susceptible of an Adoptionist interpretation. Equally 
with the Synoptics it makes the descent of the Spirit upon him in 
Jordan the central event in the life of Jesus, his ἀναγέννησις or 
spiritual birth, The language of Zhe Shepherd of Hermas, in 
its most characteristically Adoptionist passages, strikingly recalls 
the prelude of the fourth Gospel. 

Whether the Alogi were or were not right in their rejection of 
the fourth Gospel, it anyhow made its way into the canon. And 
this canon was accepted by the spiritual descendants of the Alogi, 
among whom Epiphanius reckons Theodotus. There is conse- 
quently no reason for surprise if the Paulicians, who continued the 
teaching of the Alogi, so far as this was Adoptionist, in a much later 
age felt no difficulty in accepting the fourth Gospel. There is no 
trace in the Key of the use of the Apocalypse, which the Alogi 
equally rejected. But if the Paulicians of Armenia rejected this— 
and it is not clear that they did—they were more probably actuated 
by the scruples long felt against it in the entire Catholic Church. 


XCiv THE KEY OF TRUTH 


The orthodox Armenians themselves, though they had translated it, 
hardly accepted, and rarely used it, before the eleventh century. 

In the fragments of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who addressed an 
apology to Marcus Aurelius (161-180) we meet with a transitional 
Christology, Adoptionist in its basis, with a superstructure of Logos 
doctrine. For example, in the list of his works given by Eusebius 
(H. E. lib. iv. c. 26) is a book about the creation and birth of 
Christ (περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως), from which it seems that he 
regarded Christ as a κτίσμα. Also ina fragment of his work on the 
Incarnation, adduced by Anastasius Sinaita (7 Hodego suo, contra 
Acephalos, ο. xiii. p. 260, ed. Gretseri), we find the baptism empha- 
sized as the turning-point in the life of Jesus Christ, before which 
he was a mere man, after which he was God. ‘The things done 
after the baptism by Christ, and especially the signs, manifested the 
Godhead of him hidden in flesh (τὴν αὐτοῦ κεκρυμμένην ἐν σαρκὶ 
θεότητα ἐδηλοῦν) and assured the world of it. For the same person 
being God at once and perfect man, he assured us of his two 
essences (ras δύο αὐτοῦ οὐσίας); namely, of his Godhead by means 
of the signs in the three years after the baptism, and of his 
humanity in the thirty years (χρόνοις) which preceded the baptism, 
in which, owing to the imperfection of the flesh (διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τὸ 
κατὰ σάρκα), the signs of his Godhead were concealed, although 
being true God before the aeons. The last words, in italics, are out 
of all grammatical relation with what precedes, and must ke set 
down to the excerptor. Melito’s view then was that Jesus was 
merely human, or at most potentially divine, before the baptism. 
The divinity till then lay hidden in him. The baptism caused it to 
actualise and manifest itself in miracles. But it is not clear that 
Melito believed the Godhead to have entered Jesus at baptism. It 
was rather a latent potency then called out into play, Thus his 
view was an adaptation of the Adoptionist view to the Logos 
theory. 

So far we have found the Adoptionist theology flourishing both 
in Rome, in Palestine, and in Asia Minor, from the very earliest 
age. In Antioch it reached its turning-point in the second half of 
the third century under the Bishop Paul of Samosata, who, in spite 
of the anathemas of his orthodox opponents, who to their own 
satisfaction deposed him in a synod in 269, retained his bishopric 
under the protection of Zenobia, Empress of Palmyra, until the 
year 272, when his patroness was vanquished by Aurelian. From 
motives of high policy, and not because he had any dogmatic 


MELITO. PAUL OF SAMOSATA XCV 


predilections, the victorious emperor insisted that Antioch should 
conform in matters of doctrine to Rome, of which the then bishop 
was a violent antagonist of Paul. Thus the Adoptionist influence 
was paralyzed in Asia, and the Roman Church gained its first 
great dogmatic triumph through the favour of a pagan emperor. 

The victorious faction in Antioch destroyed the books of Paul of 
Samosata; so that of all his many works there remain to us but 
a few lines, chiefly taken from his discourses to Sabinus. The 
following two extracts are worth quoting here as much because of 
their resemblance to Zhe Shepherd of Hermas and to the second 
chapter of the Key, as for their lofty spiritual tone :— 


1. ‘Having been anointed by the Holy Spirit, he was given the 
title of Christ. He suffered according to his nature, he worked 
miracles according to grace. For by his unflinching, unblenched 
will and resolution he made himself like unto God; and, having 
kept himself free from sin, he was made one with him, and was 
empowered to take up as it were the power to work wonders. By 
means of these he was shown to have one and the same energy in 
addition to the will (i.e. of God), and so received the title of 
Redeemer and Saviour of our race.’ 

2. ‘The Saviour having approved himself holy and just, and 
having overcome by conflict and labour the sins of our forefather 
(i.e. Adam)—having won these successes by his virtue—was joined 
with God, having by his progressive advances in goodness attained 
to one and the same will and energy with him. And having 
preserved the same undivided, he doth inherit the name which 
is above every name, the reward ‘of love, that was vouchsafed 
to him.’ 

It is probable that Paul of Samosata went further than the 
writer of the Aey in accommodating his language to the pneumatic 
or Logos Christology of his antagonists. For in the Key the 
Logos teaching is not alluded to, and the writer seems never to 
have heard of it. Whereas Paul identified the Logos and wisdom 
with the Spirit which descended on Jesus in the Jordan. ‘The 
Word, he taught, ‘is greater than the Christ, for Christ became 
great through wisdom.’ And ‘ Mary did not bring forth the Word, 
for Mary was not before the ages. But she brought forth a man 
on a level with ourselves. It is the man that is anointed, not the 
Word. It was the Nazarene, our Lord, that was anointed... . 
Paul therefore seems to have embraced the doctrine of a pre- 
existent Logos, identical with the Spirit, which was, in the baptism, 


xcvi THE ΚΕΝ OR) fRUGH 


united with Jesus. The ey, on the other hand, only speaks of 
the Holy Spirit as so united. At the same time we must not 
forget that the chapters in which the Paulician Christology may 
have been more fully worked out are lost. They might perhaps 
have brought the entire work more into line with Paul of 
Samosata, 

But the Adoptionist doctrine did not quite receive its death-blow 
in the overthrow of Paul. It must have still worked on the minds 
even of the partisans of the higher Christology. We cannot other- 
wise explain the presence in the works of Lactantius' of such 
a remarkable passage as the following: ‘lIlle (i.e. Iesus) vero 
exhibuit Deo fidem; docuit enim quod Deus unus sit, eumque 
solum coli oportere. Neque unquam se ipse Deum dixit; quia 
non servasset fidem, si missus ut Deos tolleret et unum assereret, 
induceret alium praeter unum. Hoc erat non de uno Deo facere 
praeconium, nec eius qui miserat; sed suum proprium negotium 
gerere, ac se ab eo, quem illustratum venerat, separare. Propterea 
quia tam fidelis exstitit, quia sibi nihil prorsus assumpsit, (nisi) ut 
mandata mittentis impleret: et sacerdotis perpetui dignitatem, et 
regis summi honorem, et iudicis potestatem, et Dei nomen accepit.’ 
In the above there is no item of teaching, except the words De? 
nomen accepit, which does not come in the Aey. In denying the 
title of God to Jesus the Paulicians undoubtedly adhered to the 
earliest form of the Adoptionist teaching. The same view of Jesus 
Christ is also met with in Tertullian, when he has no controversial 
exigencies to serve; and also presents itself from time to time in 
Origen, e€.0. C. Celsum, libs 2576-10: 

It is an error to suppose that the evolution and acceptance of 
orthodox doctrine during the third and fourth century went on at 
the same rate in the outlying parts of the Roman Empire or among 
the Christian communities outside its pale, as in the great centres, 
such as Rome, and Antioch, and Alexandria, wherein there were, 
as it were, schools and academies of divines trained in Greek 
dialectic, and ready to elaborate the more primitive and inchoate 
teaching of the Gospel into the ‘complicated and subtle develop- 
ments’ about which J. H. Newman? has written so eloquently. 
Thus it is that the Adoptionist teaching of the East, owing to the 
wilful suppression of its monuments, has survived’ to us in a single 

1 De vera Sap. iv. 14. 

2 See Development of Christian Doctrine, ch. ii. § 1. 

3 The writings of Photinus, like those of Paul of Samosata, are lost. He was 
condemned in the Synods of Milan (345, 347) for teaching the unity of the 


EACTANTIUS, = ACTS, OF ARCHELAUS Xcvii 


exceptional writing, sufficiently remote from both Rome and Antioch 
in the place of its origin. 

This writing is no other than the so-called Acts of Archelaus. 
These record a disputation held between Mani and Archelaus, 
Bishop of Karkhar, across the Tigris in Persia, before the beginning 
of the fourth century. It matters nothing whether the disputation 
was ever really held. Its importance lies in the doctrine it contains. 
For, apart from the light which it throws on the teaching of Mani, 
we learn from it exactly what was the type of Christology in vogue 
at that time in circles accounted outside the Empire to be quite 
orthodox’, and vehemently opposed to Mani. The speeches of 
Archelaus show that his Christology was Adoptionist and in very 
close agreement with the Ay. The classical passages are in 
chs. 49 and 50, wherein Archelaus combats the view of Mani 
that Jesus was a merely spiritual being, that he was the Lvernal 
(i.e. pre-existent) Son of God, and was by nature (i.e. by birth) 
a perfect being. ‘Dic mihi,’ says Archelaus, ‘super quem Spiritus 
Sanctus sicut columba descendit. Quis est etiam qui baptizatur 
a Joanne? Si perfectus erat, si Filius erat, si virtus erat, non 
poterat Spiritus ingredi; sicut nec regnum potest ingredi intra 
regnum. Cuius autem ei caelitus emissa vox testimonium detulit 
dicens: “ Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui”?’ 


divine personality, and because he regarded Jesus as a man fore-ordained by 
God, who, by his superior moral growth and development, won divine dignity. 
Harnack (Dogmen-Gesch. ii. p. 240) remarks: ‘ Hier liegt also der letzte, in 
sich consequente Versuch vor, den christlichen Monotheismus zu wahren, die 
philosophische Logos-lehre vollig abzuthun und das Gdttliche in Christus als 
eine gottliche Wirkung aufzufassen. Allein dieser Versuch war nicht mehr 
zeitgemass.’ Photinus is said to have denied the miraculous birth. The 
teaching of Bonosus was similar in tendency. 

1 Thus at the close of the dialogue (p. 185) Archelaus writes: ‘ Appellati 
sumus ex Salvatoris desiderio Christiani, sicut universus orbis terrarum testi- 
monium perhibet, atque apostoli edocent; sed et optimus architectus eius, 
fundamentum nostrum, id est ecclesiae, Paulusposuit, et legem tradidit, ordinatis 
Ministris et Presbyteris et Episcopis in ea; describens per loca singula, quo- 
modo et qualiter oporteat ministros Dei, quales et qualiter fieri Presbyteros, 
qualesque esse debeant, qui episcopatum desiderant ; quae omnia bene nobis, et 
recte disposita, usque in hodiernum, statum suum custodiunt.’ 

? It is noticeable that both Mani and Archelaus assume that if Jesus from 
birth had been fdzus and virtus Det, Christus, God merely transformed into 
man (p. 181), then he rust have been all along an apparitional and not a real 
man of flesh and blood, Archelaus asserts the Adoptionist view by way of 
denying the docetic view of Christ. He has never heard of a view which 
asserted the divine incarnation and which was of also docetic. Divine 
incarnation and docetism to his mind imply one another. 


o 
5 


xcviil THE KEY OF TRUTH 


And just above, in the same speech, Archelaus, like the writer of 
the Key, identifies Jesus Christ with the least in the kingdom of 
heaven: ‘Quando Iesus de Ioanne testimonium dat, et dicebat, 
quia maior in natis mulierum nullus surrexit Ioanne Baptista; qui 
autem minor est in regno caelorum maior est illo: Dic mihi qua 
ratione maior illo est in regno caelorum? Nunquid Iesus minor 
erat Ioanne in regno caelorum? Dico, absit.... sine dubio minor 
erat Ioanne Jesus inter natos mulierum; in regno autem caelorum 
maior illo erat.’ Before election Jesus was mere man and less 
than John. 

In his reply Mani says: ‘Mihi enim pium videtur dicere, quod 
nihil eguerit Filius Dei, in eo quod adventus eius procuratur ad 
terras, neque opus habuerit columba, neque baptismate, neque 
matre, neque fratribus, fortasse neque patre, qui ei secundum 
te fuit Ioseph; sed totus ille ipse descendens, semetipsum in 
quocunque voluit transformavit in hominem, eo pacto, quo Paulus? 
dicit, habitu repertus est ut homo.’ Athanasius, controverting an 
Adoptionist, would have used almost the same argument as that 
which Mani here addresses to Archelaus. If the pre-existing 
Divine Being merely assumed the form of man, then what sig- 
nificance attaches to the episode of the descent of the Divine 
Spirit upon Jesus in the Jordan? Mani believed that the one 
excludes the other, and makes it meaningless. Accordingly he 
ruled out the story of the baptism. And the orthodox Church also 
went some way in the same direction. For it left out of the 
creeds? all reference to the baptism of the Lord at the same time 
that it gave prominence to the rival and barely compatible inci- 
dent of the miraculous conception; and it ejected from the text of 
Luke iii. 22 the alternative, and perhaps earlier, reading: ‘Thou 
art my beloved Son: “his day have I begotten thee’ As to the 
assertion of Mani that his antagonist believed in the natural 
paternity of Joseph, ‘patre, qui ei secundum te fuit Ioseph,’ it 

1 Phil. ii. 7. 

? This omission must strike every one who considers the great importance 
which the general perspective of all four Gospels gives to the baptism of Jesus. 
Harnack notices this point (Dogmen-Gesch. ed. 3, vol. i. p. 183), and remarks 
that Ignatius alone (ad Smyrn. 1; cf. ad Eph, xviii. 2) hints of a creed in 
which the baptism was mentioned. The stress laid by Archelaus on the bap- 
tism implies that his creed gave it prominence ; and it is noteworthy that in the 
form of creed propounded by Nerses (see p. 159) for acceptance by Armenian 
Manicheans the baptism is insisted on. ‘The Manicheans denied it. The great 


Church kept it in the background and tried (see cliii foll.) to minimize its 
significance. The Armenian baptismal creed still retains it. 


IMPORT OF THE BAPTISM OF JESUS XCixX 


is not clear from these Ac/s that Archelaus denied the miraculous 
birth, But Mani was perhaps aware that Archelaus read in his 
Gospel the form of text in Matthew i. 16, which survives in the 
Lewis Syriac Codex. For this is likely to have been the form 
of text used by the Syriac-speaking bishop of Karkhar. But 
whether or no Archelaus had such a form of text, there is little 
doubt that he accepted the teaching of the miraculous birth’. 

Continuing his reply, Mani sets before us in the plainest way 
the position of Archelaus, who yet accounted himself to be an 
orthodox opponent of the new heresy: ‘Si enim hominem eum 
tantummodo ex Maria esse dicis, et in baptismate Spiritum per- 
cepisse, ergo per profectum Filius videbitur, et non per naturam,’ 
Here the words fer profectum answer to the Greek κατὰ προκοπήν, 
the watchword of the Adoptionists. 

Moreover, in the sequel Archelaus enunciates that same doctrine 
of a parallel descent of the Spirit on Christ-like men, whereby 
they became themselves Christs or Paracletes, which, as we saw, 
is hinted at in Zhe Shepherd of Hermas, and was regularly 
recognized among the Montanists, the Paulicians, and the Mani- 
cheans themselves; he is speaking with reference to the descent of 
the Spirit on Jesus at the baptism, and adds: ‘Spiritus enim 
secundum rectam rationem habitat in homine, et descendit, et 
permanet, et competenter hoc et factum est, et fit semper ”, sicut tu 
te ipsum ante hoc tempus profitebaris esse paracletum Dei.... 
Spiritum enim venisse super te dixisti, quem promiserat Iesus esse 
missurum; et unde nisi de caelo descendat? Εἰ si descendit 
Spiritus super hominem dignum se’®, super te autem veras 
columbas descendisse sentiendum est?’ It is clear that Archelaus 
believed that the Spirit descends under proper conditions and 
often on the elect, who, through its immanence in them, become 
Paracletes. He only objected to MJanz’s laying claim to such 
inspiration. But it is not to combat that claim that the passage is 
written, but in answer to Mani’s contention that, if Jesus was a real 
man of flesh and blood, then a real dove must have descended 
upon him—a contention based on Paul’s phrase szcw/ homo in 


1 He calls Jesus indeed (p. 180) ‘hominem naturaliter factum ex Maria 
habentem carnem et sanguinem.’ But here maturaliter does not exclude 
miraculous birth. It is, however, only Mani who (p. 170) speaks of zzcon- 
taminata virgo. 

2 It is difficult to reconcile this with the passage, ‘Sicut enim paracleti 
pondus,’ &c., on p.c, below. The explanation is that Christ and his disciples 
were inspired in a higher degree, but not by a Spirit different in kind. 


g 2 


ε ΕΙΠΕ KEY ΘΕ ΠΕ SH 


Phil. ii. 7, which Mani argued had the same sense as δζεμέ columba 
in Matt. iii. 16. 

Then Archelaus proceeds to declare that the Son of Mary was 
a mere man until the voice in Jordan, in recognition of his brave 
championship of righteousness, proclaimed him the Christ of 
God: ‘Non ita est quoniam exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi 
accipiens. Dico autem de eo qui ex Maria factus est homo.’ That 
is to say, the Son of Mary was not the being who, in Paul’s phrase, 
‘emptied himself, and took the form of a servant.’ ‘This self- 
emptying being was the Christ who descended on the Son of Mary 
at baptism. This is clear from what follows, for he continues: 
‘Quid enim? Non poteramus et nos multo facilius et lautius ista 
narrare? Sed absit ut a veritate declinamus iota unum. Est enim 
qui de Maria natus est Filius, qui totum hoc quod magnum est 
voluit perferre certamen, Iesus. Hic est Christus Dei, qui descendit 
super eum, qui de Maria est.’ This means that the Christhood 
was bestowed on the merely human Son of Mary at the baptism 
as a reward for his fortitude in the struggle. After a few words 
Archelaus continues thus: ‘ Statim (i.e. after the baptism) enim in 
desertum a Spiritu ductus est Iesus ut tentaretur a diabolo. Quem 
cum diabolus ignoraret, dicebat ei, “Si Filius es Dei...” _Ignorabat 
autem propter quid genuisset (sc. Spiritus) Filium Dei, qui praedi- 
cabat regnum caelorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum, nec ab 
ullo alio parari potuisset; unde et affixus cruci, cum resurrexisset 
ab inferis assumptus est illuc, ubi Christus Filius Dei regnabat.. . ’ 
Then he asks why the disciples only fell on their faces ‘in una 
hora illa, quando sicut sol resplenduit vultus eius? Nonne propter 
habitaculum illud, quod ex Maria fuerat effectum? Sicut enim 
Paracleti pondus nullus alius valuit sustinere, nisi soli discipuli, et 
Paulus beatus; ita etiam Spiritum qui de caelis descenderat, per 
quem vox paterna testatur dicens, “ Hic est Filius meus dilectus,” 
nullus alius portare praevaluit, nisi qui ex Maria natus est, super 
omnes sanctos Jesus. And he finally insists that Jesus was 
tempted as a mere man. ‘Dominus vero meus Iesus, si tentus 
est, ut homo ab hominibus tentus est. Si non est homo, nec 
tentus est. Si non est tentus, nec passus est, nec baptizatus est. 
Si ille non est baptizatus, neque quisquam nostrum baptizatus est.’ 

The above passages are remarkable for their resemblance, not 
only to the extract we have given from Zhe Shepherd of Hermas, 
but also to a very early Adoptionist book, the pseudo-Cyprianic 
De Montibus Sina οἱ Sion, in ch. 4 of which we read: ‘Caro 


ELECTIONSOF JESUS AS) THE SON ci 


dominica a Deo Patre Jesu vocata est; Spiritus Sanctus, qui de 
caelo descendit, Christus, id est unctus Dei vivi a Deo vocatus est ; 
Spiritus carne mixtus Iesus Christus.’ Here we have almost the 
words of Archelaus: ‘It was the Christ of God that descended 
upon the Son of Mary.’ And in ch. 13, the same tract, like 
Hermas, identifies the Holy Spirit with the Son of God, ‘ Sanctus 
Spiritus, Dec Fvius, geminatum se videt, Pater in Filio et Filius in 
Patre utrosque se in se vident.’ 

So far we have traced the history of Adoptionist opinion from its 
earliest cradle in Rome and Judaea to the confines of Armenia. And 
here, where it figures in dramatic form as the orthodox antithesis 
to the heresy of Mani, it also begins to approach most closely to 
the form in which Zhe Key of Truth presents it to us, though 
without forfeiting any of the characteristic features which it already 
bore in Zhe Shepherd of Hermas. For Archelaus was ἐπίσκοπος 
Καρχάρων or Kaoydpovr ; Zacagni’, the editor of the Ac/s or 
Disputatio prefers the former, Lequien (Or. Cr. tom. ii. pp. 1002 
and 1163) the latter reading®. In the Ac/s, p. 36, Karkhar or 
Kashkar is called an ‘urbs Mesopotamiae,’ which is somewhat 
vague. Wherever it was, it was three days’ hard riding from 
‘Castellum Arabion,’ a fort on the river Stranga; and this river 
formed the boundary between the Roman dominions and the 
Persian at the time of the disputation, which took place during 
the reign of Probus, about 275-277. Mommsen shows (Rom. 
Prov. ii. 115) that from the year 282 the Roman frontier against 
Persia left the Tigris in the neighbourhood of Gaugamela and 
trended north-east nearly along the upper course of the great Zab, 
so as to include the whole of the upper basin of the Tigris in the 
Roman dominion. This, ‘the earlier order’ (as Mommsen calls it 
l.c.), temporarily lost during the rebellion of Zenobia, was, however, 
really re-established by Probus, as Von Gutschmid shows in his 
article on Agathangelus in the Zectschr. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesell. 
xxxi. 50. The persistent tradition of the Armenians that it was 
Probus who restored against the Persians the old frontier along the 
upper Zab and the Araxes, cannot otherwise be explained; and 
the Disputation of Archelaus indicates that a successful Roman 
expedition along the frontier of Media was just concluded, and 


1 See Routh’s Religuiae, vol. v. p. 8, to the pages of which I refer above. 

2 On p. 41 of the Désfutatio we have ‘Charra’ written. This is the error 
of some scribe who knew Carrhae but not Karkhar. Carrhae was 300 miles 
from Arabion Castellum, and very remote from the Persian frontier of that day. 


cil RHE KEY Or TRUDE 


mentions Probus as the emperor then on the throne. Now that 
the native name for the upper Zab was Stranga we know from 
two sources. Firstly, Pseudo-Callisthenes, chs. 14, 15, says that 
Alexander, after crossing the upper Tigris, went on and crossed 
the frozen Stranga river, in order to fight the battle of Arbela. 
Secondly, Geo. Cedrenus relates that Asan (or Arslan) the Turk, 
marching (c. 1048) from Tabriz round the head of Lake Urmiah 
to invade Vaspurakan (east of Lake Van) pitched his camp κατὰ 
τὸν Στράγνα ποταμόν. The Arabion Castellum can also be fixed 
from Armenian sources. For Vardan the chronicler, a native of 
Pers-Armenia, writing about 1270, says that Sanatruk murdered 
St. Bartholomew at Arabion guwa/ag (i.e. Castellum). In the old 
Armenian Acts of Bartholomew the place is called Urdbzanos qualaq, 
i.e. Urbian city, a spelling which is natural enough in a translation 
from Syriac. Moses Chorenatzi, 21, writing not later than 700, calls 
it Arebanos gwa/ag in his Hist. 2. 36’. The place of martyrdom 
of St. Bartholomew has always been venerated by Syrians and 
Armenians alike at a spot on the east side of the upper Zab, now 
called Deir. Here is the ‘monastery and church of St. Bartholomew, 
erected on the traditional site of his martyrdom’.’ Since Vardan 
(who died in old age a.p. 1271) wrote, the old name Avadzon 
qualag has been lost, but it must have been opposite Deir, in 
a neighbourhood still strewn with ruins of the past. 

Thus we have identified both the river Stranga and the Arabion 
Castellum. Karkhar or Kaskhar was, according to the Acts, p. 48, 
a city distant three days’ ride from the Castellum. Marcellus, 
probably a Roman governor, lived there, and his fame had spread 
across the river Stranga, and so reached Persia. From the town of 
Karkhar to Arabion Castellum there ran a high road along which 
Marcellus had erected shelter-houses at intervals. Both places 
were in the Roman dominions. Mani came from some place in 
Persia two days’ ride the other side of the Stranga, and was taking 
refuge on Roman territory in the Castellum, when the Roman 
authorities gave him up to the Persian king who wanted him. It 
must have been one of the fifteen castella in Roman Gordyene 
mentioned by Ammianus, xxv. 7, 9; and may even have been the 
‘castra Maurorum, munimentum perquam opportunum ’ of which he 


' In this passage some MSS. read ‘ Arebonos,’ which is probably most 
correct. The name may have meant the camp of the ‘ Arabs,’ as Kessler (Mani) 
supposes in a disquisition otherwise full of arbitrary surmises. 

* See Murray’s Handbook to Asia Minor, 1895, p. 238. 


ARCHELAUS BISHOP IN ARMENIA ciii 


there speaks. Probably Mani came from Urmia, which is about fifty 
miles south-east of Deir, along a still existing road. The only 
highroads of any consequence leading from Arabion Castellum 
were the one to Van, which is some sixty miles nearly due west, 
and the one which now goes to Julamerk further down the Zab. 
There is no road leading north up the Zab from Deir; for you 
soon come on the hills in which the Zab rises. It is certain 
therefore that Karkhar or Kaskhar was somewhere in Vaspurakan, 
and not very far from Van, perhaps in the direction of Bitlis. 
There were several places called Karkhar in Armenia; e.g. a fort 
on the west bank of the Euphrates’, fifty miles south-east of 
Melitene and north-east of Samosata, now called Gerger, and in 
the government of Malatiah. This is too far away. Another 
is mentioned by Kirakos, an Armenian chronicler of the thirteenth 
century (ed. Ven. 1865, p. 207); and this one was apparently in 
the province of Artzakh, not far from Nakhidjevan on the Araxes. 
If so, this was also too far away. But Kirakos does not define its 
position, and it may have been further south-west. If it was 
really in Artzakh, it would have been the Araxes and not the 
Stranga which flowed between it and Persia. In any case the 
Karkhar of the Ac/s lay in Mesopotamian Armenia, not far 
from Van, and in the heart of the region where we have seen 
good reason® to locate the earliest Christianity of Armenia. 
Archelaus the Adoptionist must therefore have been bishop of 
an Armenian see in the same region as, and soon after, the. 
Bishop Meruzanes* mentioned in Eusebius’ history. He was 
probably a Syrian, as were most of the early South Armenian 
ecclesiastics. The script of the Armenian clergy in the upper 
basin of the Tigris continued to be Syriac till about 400 a.p.; it 
is even said that near Mosul Armenian MSS. are still to be found, 
written in Syriac characters. There was, moreover, an early 
and persistent tradition among the Armenians themselves that 
the Christianity of Armenia along the Median border, especially 
in Siuniq, the region east of Ararat along the Araxes, and 
bordering Albania (the modern Daghestan), was older than that 
of Gregory the Illuminator, and went back to St. Bartholomew 


1 This was an important place and seat of a Syrian bishop. Lequien (Or. 
Chr. ii. 1165-7) gives the names of many of its bishops. 

? The Albanian language itself was known as the tongue of the Gargars or 
Karkars; but Albania (now the Daghestan country) lay too far away, and 
Karkhar was clearly a city of some size and importance. 

e See! p.. cix, 


Civ THE” KEY "OF GRUGH 


and St. Thaddeus, to whom its succession of bishops went back. 
And certainly the Armenian topography of the Ac/s of the former 
saint is very accurate. It is said that he preached the Gospel 
of Matthew in Golthn round about Nakhidjewan, in Her and 
Zarewand in Pers-Armenia and in the Urébzanos gualag or Arabion 
Castellum, of which we have been speaking. The tradition 
undoubtedly contained truth, and the Ac/s of Archelaus, even 
if we had no other evidence, would be enough to prove that 
the Christianity of this region was, in the age of Gregory the 
Illuminator, as rigorously Adoptionist as it was passionately 
opposed to the propaganda of Mani. It is noticeable that 
Archelaus has no inkling of any other Christology than his own. 
It was the orthodoxy of the land. 

Prof. Harnack (Dogm.-Gesch. i. 692) infers from these Ac/s of 
Archelaus, that ‘at the beginning of the fourth century the Logos- 
Christology had not spread beyond the limits of the confederated 
Christendom of the Roman Empire.’ But he is wrong in sup- 
posing that, after the end of the third century, no Christianity was 
possible in the Church which did not recognize the personal 
pre-existence of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, disguised under 
the name Paulician, this form of the Catholic Faith survived for 
centuries among the mixed Greek and Armenian inhabitants of the 
Taurus range in its entire length. There the teaching fell on 
good ground, and bore fruit in hundreds of villages on hill or 
plain. There it maintained a steady war against images, Mario- 
latry, and much else that the degenerate Greek world had adopted 
from Paganism. It was a Church for which the seven councils 
had no significance ; for were not these synods of men who, having 
abandoned the true baptism, had lost their sacraments, their priestly 
orders, the apostolic tradition, nay, the very character and essentials 
of Christian communion? It was the Church of hardy moun- 
taineers, the rampart of Christianity and Roman civilization against 
the Arab and Tartar hordes. Nor was it without its martyrs, who 
were counted by hundreds of thousands, and whose slayers invariably 
took their orders from the persecuting clergy of old and new Rome. 
And when reasons of state or bigotry failed to exterminate this 
primitive Church among the ranges of the ‘l’aurus, its members were 
deported by hundreds of thousands to Thrace. ‘There they throve 
for centuries, and the spread of their tenets into Bohemia, Poland, 
Germany, Italy, France, and even into our own England, must have 
helped not a little to prepare the ground for the Puritan Reformation. 


ORIGIN OF NAME PAULICIAN ον 


We are now in a position to answer the question: Was 
Paulicianism a mere excrescence on the Christianity of the post- 
Nicene age, or was it the recrudescence of an ancient and primitive 
form of the religion which the great Church had outgrown, but 
which had lingered on in remote and mountainous districts. It is 
now evident to us that the name Paulician originally had reference 
not to St. Paul, but to the last great champion of Adoptionist 
Christianity in the Greek world, Paul of Samosata ; and Gregory 
Magistros spoke from sound knowledge when, in summing up his 
indictment of the Thonraki, he wrote thus: ‘ Here then you see the 
Paulicians, who got their poison from Paul of Samosata.’ In the 
nineteenth canon of the Council of Nice Paul’s followers are called 
‘ Pauliani,’ and it is enjoined that they shall be re-baptized ;—this, 
no doubt, because they, on principle, deferred baptism. Now the 
name Paulicianz is simply the Armenian form of Paulianz, and, as 
Karapet Ter-Mkrttchian points out (p. 63), could only have arisen 
on Armenian soil. The addition 25 or zk, this writer remarks, is 
derisive, ‘ welches, wie auch in anderen Sprachen, im Sinne des 
Spottes gebraucht werden kann.’ With the addition eam or zan the 
word would mean the ‘follower or son of wretched little Paul.’ 
In the same way, the derivative J/anichean may have the same 
history, and mean one who follows wretched little Mani. The 
Escurial account of the sect which is the Grundschrift of Photius, 
Petrus Siculus, Zigabenus, and other Greek writers, equally refers 
the origin of the Paulicians to Paul of Samosata. ‘ The Paulicians,’ 
we read, ‘who are also Manicheans, were by a change of name 
called, instead of Manicheans, Paulicians, from a certain Paul of 
Samosata, the son of a Manichean woman called Kallinike. That 
Paul’s mother may have borne such a name as Kallinike is likely 
enough; that she could have been a Manichean is impossible 
on chronological grounds. And J. Friedrich, the editor of this 
Escurial fragment, justly remarks that the association with Mani 
is merely due to the religious schematism, which, in the seventh 
and succeeding centuries, set down every form of dissent from the 
dominant orthodoxy to Manichean influence. Manicheanism was 
in those ages the dée noire of the orthodox catholic, just as free- 
masonry is in the present day. ‘The affiliation to St. Paul can 
never have been ventured on except by the Paulicians themselves. 
For it is absurd to suppose that their opponents would have given 
to the remnant of the old Adoptionist Church the name of Paulician, 
either because they actually were or because they considered them- 


cvi THE KEY (OF TRUTH 


selves in some special way, to be the adherents of Paul the Apostle. 
That would rather have been a reason to their enemies for not 
calling them Paulicians. In Mesopotamia the followers of Paul 
of Samosata long continued to be known as Pauliani. Ephrem 
names them in his hymns’, and he and other writers associate them 
with Nestorianism, which was the Syrian counterpart of Paulician- 
ism, and rested on a basis of Adoptionist opinion. Asseman 
(Bibl. Orient. i. 347) adduces a passage in which Nestorian opinion 
is directly traced back to the influence of Paul of Samosata. It is 
from Simeon Episc. Beth.-Arsamensis, bishop in Persia, 510- 
525 A.D. In this writing, after accusing his Nestorian contem- 
poraries of holding, like the Jews, that Christ was a mere man, 
Simeon continues thus: ‘A Simone insanum illum errorem accepit 
Ebion: ab hoc Artemon: ab Artemone Paulus Samosatenus, qui 
olim Antiochiae Syriae episcopus fuit sub Ethnicis Romanorum 
imperatoribus.... Hic enim Paulus Samosatenus plus quam 
Simon Magus et Ebion et Artemon praeceptores sui, blasphemare 
ausus est, de beata Maria haec dicens: Nudum hominem genuit 
Maria, nec post partum virgo permansit. Christum autem appel- 
lavit creatum, factum, mortalem, et filium ex gratia. De seipso 
vero dicebat: Ego quoque si voluero, Chrishis ero, quum ego et 
Christus unius eiusdemque simus naturae.’ 

How comes it that the Greek world, after using the name 
Pauliani in the fourth century to denote the party of Paul of 
Samosata, dropped it in the following centuries, and in the ninth 
knew them only under the Armenian form of the name? The 
answer seems to be this. The steady aim of the Imperial Govern- 
ment, as exampled by the mission of Gregory Magistros as late as 
the eleventh century, was to drive the adherents of the Adoptionist 
Church outside the limits of the Empire. They consequently took 
refuge in Mesopotamia, and later in the Mohammedan dominions 
generally, where they were tolerated and where their own type of 
belief, as we see from the Acts of Archelaus, had never ceased to be 
accounted orthodox. They were thus lost sight of almost for 
centuries by the Greek theologians of Constantinople and other 
great centres. When at last they again made themselves felt as 
the extreme left wing of the iconoclasts—the great party of revolt 
against the revived Greek paganism of the eighth century—it was 
the orthodox or grecized Armenians that, as it were, introduced 
them afresh to the notice of the Greeks, Thus it was through the 


1 See Asseman, &26/. Orient. i. 128. 


FOLLOWERS OF PAUL OF SAMOSATA cvii 


mediation of the Armenians themselves, and primarily as an 
Armenian sect, that the Greeks knew them. 

Armenia was the ground on which the west met the east. The 
half of it which was Roman, that is to say within the pale of the 
Byzantine Empire, took its first Cafholic’ or patriarchs from the 
Greek diocese of Caesarea?; and even after the invention, about 450, 
of the legend of the descent of the Holy Spirit in Edjmiatzin, this 
portion continued to passively adopt the decrees of all the Greek 
councils, with the single exception of that of Chalcedon; whose 
decisions the bishops and patriarchs of the orthodox Armenians for 
centuries accepted and rejected by turns, according as they wanted 
or did not want a cause of quarrel with the Greeks. But in the 
south-east of Armenia, which was for the most part outside the 
Roman Empire and under the over-lordship first of Persia and then 
of the Eastern Khaliphs, the old Adoptionist Church seems to have 
steadily held its own against the pneumatic Christology which had 
been imported from Caesarea along with monkery and the cult of 
the virgin, of the saints and of images. From the first it must 
have been a thorn in the side of the grecizing Armenians. ‘The 
antiquity conceded to it in the pages of John the Philosopher 
suggests that it was one with the sect of Borborei or muddy ones, 
who, according to the writers Goriun and Moses of Khoren?, were 
fiercely persecuted by Sahak and Mesrop in Persian Armenia. 
Goriun relates how Mesrop in the provinces and towns of 
Armenia, subject to the Emperor Theodosius, set himself under 
royal orders to combat the rash and insolent Borborides. Those 
who would not receive the word of truth, that is to say the pneu- 
matic or Logos-Christology, were given over to terrible punish- 
ments ; they were imprisoned, chained, and tortured ; and after that, 
when they were still recalcitrant, they were either burned alive, or 
penned in and hunted out of the Roman dominions, loaded with 
every sort of ignominy. 

It is probable that the so-called Messalians of Armenia, of whom 
we hear in the fifth century, were Adoptionists. In the year 447 
(following the date given by Tchamtchian) the adherents of the 
Greek Church in Armenia held a council at Shahapivan over 
which presided Joseph, a pupil of Mesrop, at which it was decreed 
(Canon xix) that priests, deacons, or monks convicted of més/énu- 


1 In the fifth century there were constantly two Catholici in Armenia, one in 
the Armenian, the other in the Persian half. 
? Bk. iii. ch. 58. 


cvill THE KEY OF TRUGH 


thiun, i.e. Messalianism, are to be branded on the forehead with 
the image of a fox. Long afterwards, in the tenth century, this was 
still the punishment of Paulicians. A relapse into the heresy was to 
be punished by ham-stringing. No definite tenets are mentioned 
in the acts of this council. The reasons for identifying the victims 
of this brutal persecution with those who later on were called 
Paulicians and Thonraki are the following :— 


x. All the Armenian writers from John of Otzun on, who 
describe Paulicianism, call it m/slénuthiun. John specially identi- 
fies it with the heresy combated by Nerses (probably Nerses 1), 
and alleges that it had flourished in Armenia long before the Arab 
invasion (ς. 650 A.D.) 

2. It was widespread in south-eastern Armenia before the middle 
of the fifth century. It not only attracted bishops, priests, deacons, 
and monks, but native satraps (zakhararg), princes, feudal lords, 
headmen of villages with their entire families. This proves that, 
previous to the introduction of orthodox Greek Logos-Christianity 
through Caesarea, it was the national faith of Armenia. It cannot 
have been any learned heresy or monkish overwrought asceticism 
which thus attracted the entire population. 

3. Lazar of Pharp, the Armenian historian, in his letter to 
Vahan, written c. 480 A.D. (printed by Emin, Moscow, 1853), 
writes as follows : ‘The heresy of our Armenian land is not named 
after any teacher; is not written down in words. Its adherents 
are ignorant, as in their faith so in their teaching; in their actions, 
however slow and infirm.’ This description indicates only a popu- 
lation of old-believers, strangers to the new Christology imported 
from Caesarea. Lazar was himself accused of this heresy. 

4. Lazar hints at baptist tenets when he applies to them the 
proverb: ‘ For the bride of the swine a bath of drain-water.’ 

5. It was distinctively the Syriac Christianity of Armenia. 
Karapet Ter Mkrttschian justly writes as follows (p. 47): ‘Wir 
erfahren nicht, wie lange sie schon hier im Lande geherrscht hatte, 
und ob man friiher gegen sie eingeschritten war. Bedenken wir 
aber, dass die Glieder dieser Synode (i.e. Shahapivan) wohl haupt- 
sachlich Schiiler des Sahak und des Mesrop gewesen sind, Manner 
also von neuer, griechischer Bildung, deren ganzes Bestreben darauf 
gerichtet war, ihre Kirche neu zu beleben und die alten Missbrauche 
zu beseitigen, so kénnen wir annehmen, dass bei ihren Vorgangern, 
die meist Syrer waren, oder Eingeborene syrischer Bildung... 
die Messalianer noch geduldet gewesen waren,’ 


COUNCIL OF SHAHAPIVAN, 480 A.D. cix 


6. This persecution of Adoptionists was in the fifth century 
inspired from Constantinople, as in the fourth it had been from 
Caesarea; and Proclus, in his Zp. ad Armenos (Mansi, v. 428), 
A.D. 435, assails the view among them (τὸν τῶν ἐμπλήκτων λόγον) 
that Christ was ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος. 

7. Lazar particularly distinguishes ‘the heresy of Armenia’ from 
other heresies, 6. 5. from that of Arius, of Apollinarius of Laodicea, 
of Nestor of Antioch, of Eutyches of Constantinople, of Kumbricius 
the slave, who afterwards assumed the name of Mani, and of many 
other ‘ guides to perdition.’ He enumerates all these and says of 
them this: ‘ These have lapsed into incurable errors in matters 
of faith, but have erred in word only and not in act. For as 
regards personal chastity there is no sort of self-mortification in 
which they are not conspicuous, and especially in matters of food 
and drink and abstinence from pollutions.’ We may infer that 
‘the heresy of Armenia’ was steadily hostile to monks and to the 
overstrained asceticism of the school of St. Basil, which was then 
spreading in Armenia, radiating from Caesarea as its focus. 

8. There is evidence that Antioch was, in the fifth century, 
a centre from which heresy made its way to Armenia. Thus in 
an Armenian MS. recently acquired by the Bodleian Library is 
preserved an old notice that, about 470-480, when John Manda- 
kuni was Catholicos of Pers-Armenia and Giut of the Greek por- 
tion, certain teachers came from Antioch to Armenia. They were 
clothed in sackcloth, barefooted, and ascetic in their lives, and 
preached against the worship of the cross, and denied the Virgin 
Mary to be ¢heofokos, ‘Their names were Constantine, Petrus, and 
Theodore, and they appeared in the village of Aushin. It is possible, 
however, that these men were Nestorian missionaries only. 

Yet it was almost certainly to these Borborides or Borborei that 
the first introduction of Christianity in Armenia was due. Eusebius 
relates in his history (bk. 6, ch. 46), that Dionysius of Alexandria, 
about the years 248-265, addressed a letter about repentance to 
the Armenian communities presided over by the Bishop Meruzanes. 
This name, in Armenian Merujan, bespeaks a member of the great 
Artsruni house or clan which ruled in Vaspurakan in the extreme 
south-east of Armenia, in the region of the headwaters of the 
Tigris. Here we know, from the Acés of Archelaus, that Adoption- 
ism was fifty years later still the orthodoxy of the land. ‘There 
can be little doubt that Meruzanes, the immediate neighbour of 
Archelaus, was a Christian bishop of the same type of faith. That 


cx ΤῊ REY, Of tRUGEH 


the earliest Christendom of their land was of this type explains the 
fact that the orthodox Armenian historians of Armenia of the late 
fourth and fifth century, Agathangelos and Faustus, are so silent 
about the earlier and pre-Gregorian Christianization of Vaspurakan. 
They wished to ignore it, for in Armenia Christianity, to their way 
of thinking, began with the introduction of the Greek pneumatic 
Christology of Caesarea. ‘To the same Adoptionist Christians of 
Vaspurakan was probably due the first Armenian version of the 
New Testament and of the Psalms. For the Mesropic version of 
the New Testament is no more than a fifth-century recension, 
made from fourth-century Greek MSS. brought from Constanti- 
nople or Alexandria, of an earlier translation based on the oldest 
form of the Syriac, as we find it either in the newly-found Lewis 
Codex or in Cureton’s MS.! This earliest Armenian transla- 
tion came from Syria along with many of the oldest Armenian 
ecclesiological terms ; and if it was originally in use in this corner 
of Armenia among Adoptionist believers, we can understand why 
the Armenian fathers of the fifth century make so much mystery 
about the earlier Armenian translation. As one reads their con- 
fused accounts of the origin of their version of the Scriptures, one 
feels that they had here something to conceal. ‘They did not wish 
to acknowledge their indebtedness to this earliest form of the 
Armenian Church. 

It is also in this connexion to be noticed that the earliest 
Christianity of Armenia, according to the evidence of the orthodox 
historians themselves, was centred in Taron, which was also the 
constant home and focus of Paulicianism. The mother church of 
Armenia was at Ashtishat, not far from Mush, in the south of Taron. 
For Valarshapat, north of Ararat, the Roman Neapolis, did not 
become the religious metropolis before the middle of the fifth 
century. 

Gregory the Illuminator was a contemporary of Archelaus, the 
Adoptionist opponent of Mani. Ashtishat, the home of Gregory 
and of Armenian Christianity, was not remote from Chaschar or 
Karkhar, and it was in the heart of the Adoptionist district of 
Armenia. Is it possible then that the Christianity of Gregory 
himself was adoptionist? There can hardly be a doubt that it was 
so, for Aristaces of Lastivert, who tells us as little as he can, admits 
as much. ‘These enemies of ours,’ he writes, ‘had they been 


1 For a detailed proof of this see my article on the subject in the American 
Journal of Theology for October, 1897. 


ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIAN NEW TESTAMENT cxi 


foreigners speaking another tongue, could have been easily guarded 
against, but “they went forth from among us” ... They are of 
our own tongue and nation, and have issued from one and the same 
spring like sweet water and bitter.’ And the context (see below, 
Ρ- 66) proves that Gregory the Ilhminator was himself the one 
wellhead from which the ‘sweet water and the bitter,’ i.e. the 
orthodox Armenian and the Thonraki ultimately derived. But if 
this be so, it follows that Gregory’s teaching was at least not anti- 
adoptionist. The Armenian fathers have, however, taken good 
care that posterity should not be too nearly acquainted with that 
teaching, whatever it was, for the so-called ‘ teaching of St. Gregory’ 
cannot have been composed in its present form before 400 a. ἢ. 
Yet even in its existing form it here and there is stamped with 
Adoptionist ideas, as witness the following passage (Zhe Discourses 
of St. Gregory the Illuminator, in Old Armenian, Venice, 1838, 
Ρ. 16) :— 

‘For as the Son of God became Son of man! and put on our 
nature and fulfilled all righteousness in soul and body, so let us too 
put on rectitude and fulfil all righteousness in Christ; that we may 
become sons of God, and Gods through love. For the Son of 
God was made flesh by the will of God and endured all affections 
of human nature, sin excepted. Even so may it be ours by help 
of the divine power to pass through all passions without trans- 
gression, that we may be able to arrive zz full age” at the perfec- 
tion (or maturity) of Christ; and thus, being changed into the true 
image of God, we shall inherit the kingdom of Christ.’ There are 
stronger traces of Adoptionism in the teaching of Gregory pre- 
served in the History of him by Agathangelus. For example we 
here read (Arm. ed. Ven. 1862, p. 314) that the Spirit came down 
at the baptism and rvesfed on Jesus, according to the reading in 
Lord Crawford’s Armenian Gospels of Luke iii. 22. The Spirit, it 
adds, then gave Jesus his glory. In the same we read that John 
the Baptist, son of the high priest Zachariah, was the depositary of 
all the divine favours conferred of old on Israel, of priesthood, 
prophetic calling, kingship, and authority. All these had been 


1 The passage would have more point if it ran: ‘ For as the Son of man 
became Son of God, having put on our nature,’ &c. And perhaps it originally 
ran in some such way. 

2 i.e. at thirty years of age, the time for baptism. There is a similar passage 
in the ‘ Teaching’ as Agathangelos gives it. Cp. the Prayers for the Service of 
Name-giving in Zhe Key of Truth, p. 99. 


Exit DHE KEY OF “RUDGE 


handed down in succession to John the Baptist; and he it 
was who ‘conferred on our Lord Jesus Christ priesthood, pro- 
phetic calling, and kingship’ (ibid. p. 320). And again lower 
down (p. 344): ‘So then John gave priesthood, and unction, and 
prophecy and kingship to our Saviour Christ, and Christ gave it to 
the Apostles, and the Apostles to the clergy of the Church.’ 

I have already alluded to the antagonism shown by the old 
Arsacide Kings of Armenia during the fourth century to the 
introduction by Nerses of Greek religious ideas and institutions 
from Caesarea of Cappadocia. Nerses was the friend and lieutenant 
of St. Basil, and the representative beyond the Euphrates of the 
somewhat narrow and aggressive orthodoxy which inspires so 
many of Basil’s epistles. The quarrel between Nerses and the 
Armenian King Pap is said by Faustus the Armenian historian to 
have resulted in the poisoning of the former. Whether it was so 
or not, it is certain that the Bishop Faustus who was nominated 
his successor by Pap was refused consecration by Basil when he 
came to Caesarea for it, but obtained what he wanted from Anthi- 
mus of Tyana, the Arian rival of Basil. Two of Basil’s letters 
bear on the subject, and more or less confirm the Armenian 
sources, viz., Epistle 58 to Meletius the bishop, wherein he 
mentions Pap by name, and complains that Anthimus by his 
action had filled Armenia with dissensions (ὥστε στάσεων ἐμπλη- 
paca τὴν ᾿Αρμενίαν); and Ep. 313 to Poemenius, Basil’s own 
nominee for the bishopric of the Armenian see of Satala, and 
formerly presbyter of Sivas. In this Basil complains, not of 
the murder of Nerses, but of a breach of the παλαιὰ εὐταξία ; 
and declares that in disgust he had ceased to send any more 
pastoral letterst to Armenians, even to Poemenius, and had 
excommunicated Faustus. In other letters (e.g. no. 187) to the 
Count Terentius, who was less solicitous that Armenia should 
be orthodox than that it should be loyal to the Empire, Basil 
makes it quite clear that it was in Armenia a question between 
the partisans of Nicene orthodoxy and the party whose opinions 
further west he was himself combating in the person of Eunomius. 
In that letter he describes a journey he had himself undertaken 
to Getasa, Nicopolis, and Satala, in order to combat the heresy 


1 In Ep. 75 to the Church of Neo-Caesarea, Basil mentions that he was in 
the habit of sending letters to and receiving them from ‘ The Pisidians, Lyca- 
onians, the Phrygians, and so much of Armenia as abuts on you’ ὑμῖν ἐστι 
πρόσοικον. 


ST. BASIL’S REFERENCES TO ARMENIA  cxiii 


of Armenia. It would appear from this letter that some Armenian 
ecclesiastics were ready to subscribe to Basil’s written creeds so 
long as they were in his territory, but returned to heresy so soon 
as their feet touched their native soil; and even Theodotus, one 
of those who had come to complain to Basil of the opinions 
of a colleague Eustathius, found it politic to forsake the great 
exponent of Greek orthodoxy, so soon as he had led him as far 
as Nicopolis. And Basil complains of this insult to Terentius: 
‘How could I give to the Armenians bishops, when I was so treated 
by one of my own opinions, one who should have shared my 
anxieties, and from whom I hoped to obtain suitable instruments? 
For there are in his parish (παροικίᾳ) religious and intelligent 
persons, who are versed in the language and understand the other 
peculiarities of the (Armenian) race. I know their names, but will 
not now disclose them, lest I should prejudice them as my instru- 
ments in Armenia at some future time.’ The last sentence reveals 
the unpopularity in Armenia of the Nicene orthodoxy, and entirely 
accords with the notices of Faustus the Armenian who relates in 
his history (iv. 15) that Arshak, the predecessor of Pap, deposed 
Nerses Catholicos, and set up a rival pontiff in his place, who was 
consecrated by bishops (probably Adoptionists) from the cantons 
of Kordug and Aldsniq in Pers-Armenia. It was Arshak’s suc- 
cessor Pap who effected a final rupture with Caesarea, and, though 
a heretic, established the autonomy of the Armenian Church. 
To the period of this conflict between King Arshak and Nerses 
seems to belong letter no. 69 in the collection of Basil’s corre- 
spondence. It is a memorial addressed by the orthodox bishops 
of Asia Minor to their brethren in Italy and Gaul, appealing to 
them for aid in their combat with the heresy akin to Arianism, 
only worse, which, like a storm, had swept over all the populations 
from Illyria’s borders as far as the Thebaid. The movement was 
in favour of a more popular method of electing the bishops, and in 
matters of faith was directly opposed to the Nicene faith. Among 
the bishops subscribing to this letter we find Nerses himself and 
four others who were Armenian ecclesiastics,namely, Iosakes (You- 
sik), successor of Nerses, Chosroés, Theodotus, and Eustathius. 
Barsumas and Maris, whose names are also appended, may have 
been Syrian bishops. The next letter, no. 70, of Basil himself, 
belongs to the same epoch, and is again addressed to the orthodox 
in Italy and Gaul, asking them for aid. It is important as showing 
that the opinion of which the triumphant spread filled Basil with 
h 


CXiV THE KEY OF TRUTH 


such dismay was Adoptionism. ‘The only-born,’ he says, ‘is 
blasphemed, the Holy Spirit dishonoured; ... there is among them 
a great God and a little one; for “the Son” is not a name 
connoting the nature (i.e. of Jesus), but is esteemed a title 
conveying some sort of honour’, The Holy Spirit is not to 
be complementary of the Holy Trinity, nor a sharer of the 
divine and blessed nature, but to belong to the realm of created 
things, tacked on, no matter how, to the Father and the Son.’ 
At the same time Basil acknowledges the essentially Christian 
organization of the heretics. ‘They have their baptisms,’ he says, 
‘their funerals”; they visit the sick regularly, console the sorrowing, 
minister aid to those in distress. In every sort of way they succour 
each other, and have their communions of the mysteries. Nothing 
is neglected by them to knit together the laity in unity of faith with 
themselves. In a little while, even if we gain a respite, there will 
still remain no hope of recalling to a knowledge of the truth men so 
long ago caught in the meshes of error.’ In Epistle ro to Gregory 
Theologus, Basil also mentions one Fronto, who had, in spite of 
his heresy, procured his elevation to the Armenian bishopric of 
Nicopolis. ‘He has become, he adds, ‘by God’s grace, the 
public abomination of all Armenia’—a statement which we may 
take for what it is worth. In Epistle 65 to the Church in Sozopolis 
Basil evidently glances at the same heresy, which, cresting the 
wave of Arianism, spread tumult and trouble throughout the 
churches. It assailed the mystery of the Incarnation’, i.e. the 
divinity of Jesus prior to his baptism, and alleged that the Lord 
came with a heavenly body, so that there was no use for the Virgin, 
since Christ did not take from her of the flesh of Adam*. These 
are exactly the errors which the Greek sources later on ascribe to 
the Paulicians; though the Key, as we have it, does not make it 
clear that they held the latter. In yet another letter, no. 72, to the 
Evaiseni, evidently treating of the same heresy, Basil declares that 
it made the Spirit older than the Son® at the same time that it 
alleged it to be a created being, both characteristic opinions of the 
Adoptionists, and of which the former inspires, as we saw, Zhe 
Shepherd of Hermas. 


* Οὐχὶ φύσεως ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ τιμῆς τινος προσηγορία. The sonship belonged, 
that is, to Jesus not through his birth, but was conferred on him when he was 
elected by God at the Baptism in Jordan. 

2 Προπομπαὶ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων. 8 τὴν σωτήριον οἰκονομίαν. 

* Τοῦ φυράματος τοῦ ᾿Αδάμ. 5 Πρεσβύτερον εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα. 


GRECIZING OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH cxv 


It would be rash to affirm that the heresy of Armenia in these 
stormy last decades of the fourth century was identical in all 
respects with the forms of opinion combated elsewhere by Basil. 
It was error of a more primitive cast, though no doubt it had this 
in common with the heresy of Eunomius, that it affirmed the Son 
to be a ποίημα or κτίσμα; and it probably laid the same stress on 
the reality of Jesus’ human ignorance! as did the teacher we have 
just named, of whose work against Basil we would justly deplore the 
loss, since, even in the latter’s dialogue against him, he figures as 
a profoundly earnest and comprehensive spirit, anxious to accept 
the plain sense of the Gospels without twisting it*, and to include 
(and not exclude) as many good Christians as he can in the Church. 
For this end Eunomius framed a creed which would drive as few 
out as possible; and, instead of trying to manufacture heresy, was 
eager to conciliate by insisting only on essentials. ‘We believe,’ 
he says (Basil, Adv. Eunomium, 110. i. p. 7 of ed. Paris), ‘in one 
God the Father Almighty, from whom are all things; and in one 
only-begotten Son of God, God-Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things; and in one Holy Spirit the Paraclete.’ ‘This 
faith of ours, he adds, ‘is fairly simple, and held alike by all who 
are anxious to appear or to be Christians.” How much misery 
might have been spared in east and west if his spirit of moderation 
had triumphed! Instead of that we have the spectacle of a series 
of councils, each more ingeniously designed than the last to drive 
outside the pale of the Church a large body of devout and earnest 
Christians. 

But although the Armenian heresy of the fourth century had 
much in common with the Arians and with the school of Eunomius 
and Marcellus of Ancyra, it was probably more rigorously Adop- 
tionist than were these teachers whose doctrine was for the most 
part an attempt to combine the pneumatic or Logos idea with 
the primitive Adoptionist view. 

Apart from the few notices of Greek writers, our knowledge of 
early Armenian Church history has come down to us purely 
through writers of the Caesarean or grecizing school; and they are 
either reticent or content to ascribe to their opponents nameless 
vices instead of defining their heterodoxy. But we are probably 
justified in concluding from the imperfect evidence we have, and 


1 Cp. the Catechism, p. 122. 
2 As does Basil in explaining away the text of Mark xiii. 32, ‘ Neither the 
Son, but the Father.’ 


h 2 


cxvi RHE MKEY, OF a RUG EH 


of which I have now given the gist, that the earliest Armenian 
Christianity was introduced by Syrian missionaries who were 
Adoptionists. The ultimate radiating centre from which they 
drew their illumination was the Antioch of Paul of Samosata, 
and not the Caesarea of Basil. There is little real evidence to 
prove that Gregory the Illuminator was brought up at Caesarea, 
or that he went to Caesarea for consecration, or that he himself 
accepted the Nicene Christology. His ‘teaching’ still bears traces 
of Adoptionist ideas, and had it been orthodox his successors need 
not have recast it in so unsparing a fashion. The transference in 
the fifth century of the centre and focus of Armenian Christianity 
from Ashtishat in Taron to Valarshapat was consequent on the 
obstinate opposition of the population of Taron and Vaspurakan 
to the newly-imported Greek Christology, an obstinacy which 
lasted for centuries after. The Greek influence over the Armenian 
Church, begun by Nerses under the example and precept of Basil, 
culminated in what is known as the school of translators, led by 
Saints Sahak and Mesrop. They made the revision of the older 
Armenian New Testament, translated from the Old Syriac, and 
used the latest Greek MSS. in making it. The greater activity 
and intelligence of the ‘translators’ gradually took effect; the 
Adoptionist bishops and priests were tortured and driven out of 
parts of Armenia subject to Byzantium; and, by the end of the 
fifth century, Lazar of Pharp describes the old Adoptionist faith 
of his countrymen as an obscure heresy. Still it lingered on and 
kept up relations with ‘the old believers’ of Antioch, ready to 
blossom out into activity when an opportunity should occur. It 
may have been the Iconoclastic movement and the accession to the 
throne of Constantinople of one of themselves in the person of 
Constantine, nicknamed Copronymus, which furnished the requisite 
stimulus and opportunity. 

The evidence for believing that this emperor, derisively called 
Caballinus by John of Damascus, was a pure Paulician, is 
very strong. Theophanes, his contemporary, declares in set 
terms that he was; and Theostériktos, who was the disciple 
of St. Nicetas, and wrote a life’ of his master under the Empress 
Irene, asserts that Constantine not only threw down images, but 
would not even allow the martyrs to be publicly called saints, 
re-naming churches ad apostolos, ad quadraginta, ad Theodorum, 
and so forth, omitting the prefix ἅγιος, He despised their relics, 


1 See this life in the Acta Sanctorum, April, tom. i. p. 260. 


THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY SMBAT cxvii 


and was only a Christian outwardly, and at heart a Jew. He 
tried to abolish the name of the Virgin, and would not hear of 
her intercession, nor call her holy and blessed. As long as she 
had Christ within her, she was indeed τιμία ; but after his birth was 
just like any other woman, a purse emptied of the gold it held. 
The monks, whom he named ἀμνημονεύτους, were objects of detesta- 
tion to him as to the Paulicians. His rejection of infant baptism 
was, as we said above, artistically conveyed by the orthodox Greeks 
in their story that he fouled the font’ in St. Sophia, when Germanus 
the patriarch was baptizing him as a child. 

When then we read in Gregory of Narek and Gregory 
Magistros that Smbat was the founder of the Thonraki and 
gave them their laws, what are we to understand? Certainly 
not that he did more than commit to writing and formally draw 
up a system of ritual and observance which he and they had 
learned or inherited from others of an older time. 

It is certain that Gregory Magistros did not regard Smbat as 
the author of the peculiar tenets and practices of the Thonraki. 
On the contrary, he twice refers his readers to John of Otzun, 
who lived a hundred years before Smbat, for an antidote to 
their poison, and he pointedly identifies them with the Paulicians 
and declares that they were followers of Paul of Samosata. Smbat 
himself, he says, was only a pupil of the Persian physician Mdjusik, 
of whom we know nothing. 

The heresy was an old one in Armenia, but its adherents in 
Taron, before Smbat, were without organization, and had no 
church of their own. Until his advent they may have formed 
a conservative party within the Armenian Church, opposed to 
all grecizing elements and influences, perhaps upholding locally 
their own ideas and forms of priesthood, nurturing their own 
primitive creed, and retaining their institution of adult baptism 
with the less friction because, in the great Church itself, infant 
baptism was for centuries rather the exception than the rule. 
Even in the Greek and Latin Church adult baptism was still 
common in the fourth century. In the Armenian it probably 
continued much later? to be the rule. For the changes effected in 


1 Τὴν κολυμβήθραν ὅλην ixpeiwoe ... ὥστε φωνῆσαι . . Τερμανόν. Οὗτος 
φανήσεται τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ δυσωδία μεγάλη. John Damase. in Migne, P. G. vol. xcv. 
col. 337. ‘Theophanes, a contemporary, tells the same story. 

2 John of Otzun (718 A.D.) is the first to mention it, and he was well aware 
that in the days of Cyril of Jerusalem it was the exception and not the tule in 
the Church. 


CXVili THE. KEY: OF TLRUTE 


the great Church usually took effect in Armenia one or two 
hundred years later. 

In the English Church we see what is called a Low Church 
party entertaining ideas of the priesthood, of the sacraments, of the 
use of lights, crosses, &c., quite opposed to the dominant party, 
which is named by them the Ritualist or Romanizing party. Now 
if this so-called Low Church party, after enduring much petty 
persecution, were driven out or seceded, and formed themselves 
into a separate Church, with a rival primate of their own, there would 
happen exactly what, so far as we can judge, took place in South- 
eastern Armenia early in the ninth century under Smbat. The 
Adoptionists were driven out or seceded and established themselves 
as a separate and organized! Church with a primate or patriarch 
of their own. Gregory Magistros implies as much when he 
says that Smbat gave them their laws and, quitting the path of 
illumination (i.e. the Church of Gregory the Illuminator), entered 
a blind alley. He gives twice’ over the list of their pontiffs from 
Smbat’s age up to his own. 

If it be asked, How could a party holding tenets so opposed to 
those of the great fifth century Armenian doctors, Nerses, Sahak, 
Mesrop, Elisaeus, have lurked so long within the fold, the answer 
is to be found in the political condition of Armenia. The popula- 
tion was broken up into great independent clans, separated from 
each.other by huge mountains, and led by udal chieftains. A bishop 
in those days presided, not over a diocese, but over a clan. Inside 
a clan, therefore, a peculiar ecclesiastical use or faith could 
propagate itself unmolested for generations, and did so; for the 
religious unity of the clans must have been as weak and precarious 
as was their political unity. It was indeed the constant feuds 
between the clans, and the dislike of their chieftains to any political 
subordination under a king or under one another, that finally 
shattered the state of Armenia, or rather never allowed a state in 
the true sense of the word to be constituted. 

Long before the ninth century, the grecizing party had got the 
upper hand in the Church of Armenia, and appropriated to itself 
the catholicate. But the Adoptionist type of Christianity, the 


1 It may be inferred from Gregory Magistros’ mention (see p. 148) of the 
letters of the congregations of Khnus, Thulail, and Kasché (in Pers-Armenia 
near old Djoulfa on the Araxes), that there was regular correspondence between 
the chief See of Thonrak and the other Paulician churches, scattered over 
Armenia from Albania beyond the Kur to the Western Euphrates, 


HE ORGANIZED THE ADOPTIONISTS CXix 


Christianity of Archelaus of Karkhar, still held its own among 
some of the clans of South-eastern Armenia, notably among the 
Bagratuni. In the ninth century its adherents finally seceded or 
were driven out, and became a rival Church to that which, having 
established its headquarters at Valarshapat, had as early as a.p. 450 
invented the legend of the descent of the Holy Spirit in Edjmiatzin. 
The now separated Adoptionist Church seems to have had its 
entire strength in Taron, where remained the mother-church of 
all Armenia, the shrine of St. Gregory at Ashtishat, a monumental 
protest against the fictitious claims of Edjmiatzin. It is evident 
that the first pontiff set up by the Adoptionists in opposition to 
the Catholicos of Edjmiatzin was named Smbat. He it was in all 
probability who committed to writing for the use of his clergy 
the ancient forms and prayers of his Church. The manual so 
composed he called Zhe Key of Truth. The prayers and liturgical 
parts of this book, as I have noticed above, are older in style than 
the rest, and had probably been in immemorial use when they were 
thus written down and ‘published,’ as the exordium says. It is 
not improbable that Gregory the Illuminator originally composed 
them. 

But the Adoptionists did not view themselves as seceders, but as 
the true and original and orthodox Church of Armenia. ‘We are 
the apostolic men,’ they argued. ‘We the people who have not 
swerved in faith’ (Greg. Nar. p. 61). ‘ We are of the tribe of Aram 
(i.e. true Armenians), and agree with them in faith.’ So the modern 
Paulicians still answer (see above, p. xxili): ‘We are sons of the 
Illuminator.’ They took their stand on the reguda fider, and perhaps 
used in good faith then as now the Apostles’ Creed’, anathematized 
in equally good faith the ancient heretics, especially Manes, and 
demanded of Peter the Catholicos in the eleventh century that he 
should recognize them for what they claimed to be. ‘Will you 
persuade us to receive you into the Church with those principles of 
yours?’ replies Gregory Magistros to the Thulaili who made the 
demand. But he, like Aristaces (see p. 66), hints that they were an 
offshoot of the Church of the Illuminator. ‘ You are not of us,’ he 
says, ‘yet one sees no other to whom you could attach yourselves. 
You are neither hot like us, nor cold like the ancient heretics you 
denounce, but lukewarm.’ According to Nerses Shnorhali, the 
Paulicians of Mesopotamia in the twelfth century still claimed the 
antique patres of Armenia as their own teachers (p. 90). 


1 See above, p. xxv, the confession of Manuk, son of David. 


cxxX THE ‘KEY -OF TRUTH 


Gregory Magistros further hints that the Paulicians derived their 
orders through and from the Armenian Church itself. Smbat, he 
says, assumed externally the position of a high priest, but did not 
openly ordain bishops or consecrate the holy oil. But he employed 
bishops secretly fallen away. In other words, a number of bishops, 
who had never been anything else but Adoptionists, seceded with 
Smbat, who perhaps headed the movement as a layman, or even as 
the prince of the Bagratuni, until his consecration as their first 
pontiff. In its first burst of vigour the newly constituted Church 
seems to have effected an ecclesiastical revolution in Armenia, and 
to have deposed John of Owaiq, setting upon the throne of the 
catholicate a nominee of its own. But this is not certain. 

It is probable, however, that Smbat, when he formed his new 
Church of old believers and gave it an organization and a line of 
rival primates of its own, also began the practice of anathematizing 
the orthodox Armenians, and of denying them even to be Christians ; 
not, however, because they had wrong creeds, but because they were 
paedo-baptists. It must have been over the issue of infant baptism 
that the long-ripening quarrel came to a head, and burst out in open 
schism and mutual anathemas. Though the Adoptionist tenets had 
long before been anathematized by the grecizing party, the Adop- 
tionists had never till now retorted. This is why Gregory Magistros 
says that Smbat ‘set himself to deny all priestly functions.’ He 
first had the courage to declare that the other party, having lost true 
baptism, had lost priesthood and sacraments as well. And this is 
the declaration which so frequently occurs in Zhe Key of Truth. 

Aristaces of Lastivert freely owns that the Paulicians of the province 
of Harq enjoyed the favour and protection of several of the local 
princes, but he says nothing about Smbat. And it may be that the 
importance of Smbat is exaggerated by the two writers who mention 
him. If we had the lost work of Ananias of Narek, from whom these 
writers drew much of their information, we should be able to speak 
more definitely. Of one thing we may be quite sure, and that is 
that even if the Persian Mdjusik and Smbat do stand behind The 
Key of Truth, yet they were only links in the tradition of the 
peculiar tenets therein set before us, mere intermediaries as was 
Paul of Samosata himself, and not originators. The author of 
The Key of Truth himself indicates that he was not originating, 
but only handing on and restoring to those from whom it had 
been a long time hidden a tradition as old as the apostles. His 
tone throughout is τὰ ἀρχαῖα xpareirw, And an examination of the 


ANALOGOUS TEACHING OF TERTULLIAN  cxxi 


contents of the book in the light of the knowledge which we possess 
from other sources of the Adoptionist Church, assures us that it 
contains next to nothing that is purely Armenian, and very little 
that is not primitive. 

This is notably the case with the Paulician rite of baptism. 
From the Key itself, from Isaac Catholicos (see p. Ixxvi), and from 
the further information furnished by the inquisition of 1837-1840, 
we infer that it was put off till a believer was thirty years of age. 
In the orthodox Church itself of the fourth century it was still usual 
to so postpone the rite. Still less was the rejection of infant 
baptism a mark of lateness. ‘We are quite in the dark,’ writes 
Prof. Harnack, ‘as to the way in which infant baptism won 
admission into the Church. It may be that it owes its origin to 
the thought that baptism was indispensable to blessedness; but 
none the less it is proof that the superstitious view of baptism had 
forced its way to the front.’ In the time of Irenaeus (2. 23. 4) 
and of Tertullian (De Bapt. 18) the practice of child-baptism, 
based on an appeal to Matt. xix. 14, was already existent; but 
for its existence in an earlier age we have no testimonies; Clement 
of Alexandria does not presuppose it. Tertullian wrote a polemic 
against it, urging not only that conscious faith was a necessary 
pre-condition of baptism, but also—what in his eyes was even more 
important—that the importance of the rite (pondus bapiismt) requires 
its postponement. The arguments of Tertullian deserve to be 
quoted, because they are in almost verbal agreement with those 
urged by the writer of the Aey:— 


‘They whose office it is to baptize know that baptism is not 
rashly to be administered. ‘‘ Give to every one who beggeth thee,” 
has a reference of its own, and especially concerns almsgiving. 
[With regard to baptism] on the contrary, the following precept 
should be observed: “Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor 
cast your pearls before swine *.”’ 


So in the Key, chs. xviii and xix, the catechumens must humbly 
ask for baptism, but the boon is not to be granted without diligent 
testing in faith and repentance of those who ask for it. 

Tertullian, after denying that Philip was too ready or off-hand in 
baptizing the eunuch, proceeds thus :— 


1 The argument of W. Wall (Hist. of Infant Baptism, Oxford ed., 1836, 
vol. i. p. 84), based on Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ili. Ὁ. 11, if it proved anything, 
would prove that the Paedagogus was addressed to infants and not to adults. 

3 Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch. 18 (Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library). 


CxXxii THE. KEY- OF TRUTH 


‘But Paul too, it will be objected, was baptized off-hand. Yes, 
for Simon, his host, recognized him off-hand to be “‘an appointed 
vessel of election.” God’s approbation sends sure premonitory 
tokens before it; every “ petition” of man may both deceive and 
be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposi- 
tion, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is 
preferable ; principally, however, in the case of little children. ... 
The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.” 
Let them “come,” then, when they are grown up; let them 
“come,” when they learn; when they are taught, let them come ; 
let them be made Christians, when they have become able to 
know Christ.’ 


Tertullian has already dwelt on the risk run by sponsors in 
infant baptism; now he goes on to ask why children, whom one 
would not trust with an earthly treasure, should have committed to 
their keeping the divine. ‘Let them know how to “ask” for 
salvation, that you may seem [at least] to have given “to him that 
asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also put off 
baptism, for in them temptation is ever ready. For the same 
reason even widowers are not to be baptized till they re-marry 
or are confirmed in their continence. ‘If any understand the 
weighty import (fondus) of baptism, they will fear its reception 
more than its delay.’ Such is Tertullian’s conclusion. 

In ch. xx of the same tract Tertullian insists on the necessity 
that those about to be baptized should spend the preceding night 
in prayer, fasting, and genuflexions, and vigils, and they shall 
confess all their past sins according to the Scripture, ‘They were 
baptized, confessing their own sins.’ And the confession was to be 
a public one. He concludes his treatise by advising the newly 
baptized to imitate, by strict abstinence after baptism, the forty days’ 
fast of the Saviour. The Paulician practice was in all respects 
similar as it is represented in ch. xix of the Key. 

And, as with the Paulicians so with Tertullian, the water, and 
not a vessel or building enclosing it, was the essential in baptism. 
‘It makes no difference,’ he writes, ‘ whether a man be washed in 
a sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough’ (ibid. 
ch. iv). 

One could believe that Tertullian’s tract was at some time or 
other in use among those from whom the author of the Key derived 
his teaching. Nor is it a far-fetched supposition that the Greek 
work, which Tertullian avows he had written on the same subject 


ABSENCE OF A TRUE HIERARCHY CXXIili 


(‘de isto plenius iam nobis in Graeco digestum est’), had a vogue 
among the Eastern Adoptionists, As in the ey, an elect one 
alone can confer baptism, so in Tertullian, ch. 17: ‘Dandi quidem 
habet ius summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri 
et diaconi; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate. This was 
a point about which—if we may rely on the letter of Macarius 
(c. 330)—the early Church of Armenia was lax; but much else 
that Macarius condemns in the Armenians of that age Tertullian 
had upheld, in particular the delaying of baptism and the view that 
fonts and baptisteries are unnecessary. The same letter reveals 
that prevalence in Armenia of Arian or Adoptionist tenets, which 
St. Basil proves to have existed fifty years later. Macarius’ letter 
is preserved in old Armenian, and in my ninth appendix I translate 
it, adducing reasons for regarding it as authentic evidence in 
regard to the religious condition of Armenia in the age of the 
Nicene Council. 

There seems to have been no monkery in the Paulician Church ; 
and its tone is very hostile to the institution as it existed in the 
orthodox Churches ; a fact very explicable, if we bear in mind that 
in those Churches the monks were everywhere the most fanatical 
upholders of image-worship. The author of the Escurial Fragment 
says that the Paulicians taught that it was the devil who had 
revealed to mankind the holy monastic garb, revealed and given 
from God though an angel to men. In contrast therefore with the 
practice of the Manicheans and of the great persecuting Churches, 
but in accordance with the precept of St. Paul, the Paulician 
bishop had to be married, and to be the father of a family. 

Nor was there any higher or lower clergy. The elect one, the 
living representative and successor upon earth of Christ and his 
disciples, was the only authority in the Church; and he was 
apostle, teacher, bishop, or parish-priest, as the exigencies of 
religious ministration required. The elect were peculiarly the 
organs of the Holy Spirit, and as such not greater or less one 
than the other. For ‘God giveth not the Spirit by measure.’ 
They too carried the imitation of Christ a step further than the 
merely baptized. They took upon themselves the same work of 
prophecy and ministry, of preaching the word and of suffering for 
the faithful, of surrender of self to the Holy Spirit that had elected 
and inspired them, as Jesus Christ, after his baptism, had under- 
taken. As he, after the descent of the Spirit on him in the Jordan, 
had retired for forty days into the solitude of the mountain to 


CXXiV THE ΚΟΥ "OF -TfRUGH 


commune with God, so the newly elected one was taken by the 
bishop, who had breathed into him the Holy Spirit, to his house 
for forty days, there to meditate in seclusion ‘in the precincts of 
the Church, to learn his duties, and consider the solemnity of the 
order to which he is called’ The custom of the orthodox 
Armenian Church is somewhat similar. And this Church also 
resembles the Paulician in its order of Vardapet, equal in dignity 
to the bishop, and probably the true successor of the λαλοῦντες τὸν 
Adyov of the earliest Church. 

The Greek sources merely tell us that the Paulicians called their 
priests swnecdemt, or travelling preachers, and no/arz, that is to say, 
copyists of the sacred books. These priests, they tell us, were 
indistinguishable from the laity in their habits or dress, in their 
diet and in the general arrangement of their life. The Greek 
writer who reports these details was well acquainted with the 
Paulician priest in his missionary aspect, and merely repeats to his 
readers the external features which most impressed him. There is 
no contradiction between his meagre notice and the fuller informa- 
tion of the Key; at the same time it exactly agrees with the 
information of Isaac Catholicos (see p. xxix). 

Yet there are some minor points in the Church organization 
which the Key does not quite clear up. We would like to know, 
for example, if the rulers (¢shkhang) who, as well as the bishop, 
independently tested the candidate for election, and then presented 
him to the bishop for the laying-on of hands and reception of the 
Spirit, were themselves elect ones, and therefore the spiritual equals 
of the bishop; or were they only baptized members of the Church ? 
Since the writer uses the word zshkhanuthtun, which means ‘rule’ or 
‘authority,’ to denote the priestly power to bind and loose, the word 
ishkhang should signify those who are possessed of such authority, 
that is to say, all the elect ones of the Church. Yet the context 
rather implies that they were not the same as the presbyters or 
elders; for it declares that presbyters and zshkhang were present 
together, and, just as the writer speaks of arch-rulers, so he speaks 
of arch-presbyters as being present. If we were to be guided by 
the terminology of the orthodox Armenian Church, and in this 
matter there is no particular reason why we should not be, we 
must answer that these ‘rulers’ were elect ones, just those deposi- 
taries of the power to bind and loose from whose order were 


1 See Zhe Armenian Church, by Dr. Issaverdians, in English. Venice, 1877, 
p- 463. 


ORIGINAL AND OPERATIVE SIN CXXV 


chosen the few who were to discharge the functions of shepherd, 
of bishop, of hegumen, of vardapet, of apostle. The usage of the 
orthodox Armenians is in favour of this view, for Nerses of 
Lambron, who died in 1198, thus writes in his exposition of 
the mass (p. 42 of the Armenian text): ‘The priestly order 
and that of monk or ascete are widely separate from each other. 
For the priesthood is a position of pre-eminence, and is a presby- 
terate among the congregation ; but monkhood is self-mortification 
in following Christ, an order of self-abasement and of silence, and 
not of rule’ (ishkhanuthean). Here then the rulers are the priesis 
(gahana, Hebrew Cohen) and elders. So on p. 35 of the same 
work, Nerses says of the girdle which, like the Brahmanical sacred 
thread, the priests wore from the patriarch downwards, that it is 
indicative of the ‘rule’ they exercise in the temple amidst the 
congregation. 

We are therefore inclined to suppose that the rulers were 
presbyters; and these presbyters were elect ones, holding no 
particular office, and deputed to discharge no special function 
in the Church. They would be a fairly numerous class if, as 
is likely, every believer made it his ambition to be elected, and 
receive the crowning grace of the Holy Spirit before he died. 
Here, however, we enter a region of uncertainties. If we could 
suppose that the writer uses zshkhan in one sense and ishkhanuthiun 
in another, we might identify the ‘rulers’ with the magistrates, and 
the ‘arch-rulers’ with the lords of the clans, whose approval of the 
candidate for a bishopric would naturally be required. So in the 
canons of Hippolytus the approval of the ‘people’ is requisite, 
and all ordinals allow for the consent of the laity or of the civil 
government. It must not be forgotten that the Paulician ordinal 
provides for the consecration of a pastor, as well as of an 
elect one. 

The writer of the Key often uses the terms ‘original’ and 
‘effective sin,’ answering to the Latin peccatum originale et actuale 
or effectivum. We do not find these terms in use among the 
orthodox Armenians before the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, 
after which they are often used in connexion with baptism, for 
example in the manual or Swmma of Gregory of Dathev, written in 
1407, and a generation earlier in John of Erzingan. But already 
in the tenth century Gregory of Narek* uses the same word 
(skzbanakan) as the Key, a word answering to originale in the 


1 Meditations, 28 (of Arm. edition). 


CXXvi THE KEY OF TRUTH 


following obscure sentence: ‘Let him be freed from the evil bonds 
of deadly evils original, final, and of the middle time.’ In the book 
entitled Khrat, ascribed to the same writer, but probably of later 
origin, and perhaps by Gregory of Skiurh in the thirteenth century, 
we have the exact phrase ‘original sin,’ used of Adam’s trans- 
gression. In the Haysmavourg or Synaxary of Cilicia of the same 
date we read of ‘the original transgression of Adam.’ But in such 
a case as this we cannot be guided by the usage of the orthodox 
Armenians, to whom the use of a particular phrase among the 
Thonraki would be a reason for not employing it themselves. 

We do not know who were the intermediaries, but we may be 
sure that the phrase came to the Paulicians of Armenia from the 
west, where it was in common use in Latin writers as early as the 
end of the fourth century. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa, 
the first witness to its use, does not seem to have invented it 
himself. Caesarius of Arles, in his Sermones (Migne, P. L. vol. xxxix, 
1830; he died in 542), used the phrase: ‘ De originali vero vel 
actuali peccato liberare vel resuscitare.’ And as early as 520 we 
meet with it in Constantinople in the profession of faith of the 
Scythian monks directed against the Pelagians (Migne, P. L.vol. xlv, 
1772): ‘Sicut Pelagii et Coelestii sive Theodori Mopsuestini disci- 
puli, qui unum et idem naturale et originale peccatum esse affirmare 
conantur. We therefore infer that Theodore used it. Fulgentius 
also used the phrase in his Leber de Fide ad Petrum, § 33, a work 
of the early sixth century. There were a hundred channels, hidden 
from us to-day, through which the phrase might reach the Paulicians 
of the eighth or ninth century. And in trying to account for its use 
in the Key, we must bear in mind that the Adoptionist Church 
remained one and undivided, and was unaffected by the scission of 
east and west, which as early as the fifth century revealed itself, and 
in the ages which followed parted Greek and Latin orthodoxy ever 
more and more widely asunder. Thenceforth the only real union 
of east and west was an union of heresy or heresies, and the only 
bond between the great persecuting Churches was their common 
hatred of the persecuted sects. There continued after the fourth 
century the same unrestricted intercourse between the Adoptionists 
of the west and those of the east as there had been up to that age. 
Eusebius, H. 15. vii. 30, testifies to the Latin influences which were 
already in the third century at work in Syria, when he records, 
on the faith of the bishops who condemned and deposed Paul 
of Samosata, that the heresiarch’s spiritual father was Artemas, 


ELECTION AND HEREDITARY PRIESTS cxxvii 


the leader of the Roman Adoptionists in the middle of that 
century. 

It is conceivable that the phrase ‘original and actual sin’ 
originated among the Latin Adoptionists, and was by them passed 
on to their oriental brethren. This is the more likely because 
Augustine, in whom ‘we first meet with the phrase, himself as 
a young man held Adoptionist opinions, without, as he tells us, 
being conscious of their heterodoxy. For in his Confessions, ἢ. 
19 (25), he writes thus: ‘Quia itaque vera scripta sunt, totum 
hominem in Christo agnoscebam; non corpus tantum hominis, 
aut cum corpore sine mente animam; sed ipsum hominem, non 
persona Veritatis, sed magna quadam naturae humanae excellentia 
et perfectiore participatione sapientiae praeferri ceteris arbitrabar.’ 
He clearly imbibed his Christianity in Adoptionist circles in North 
Africa, and his teachers, whoever they were, regarded their opinion 
as Catholica veritas, just as did Archelaus and the Paulicians in the 
east, and, as we shall presently see, those of Spain as well. Is it 
not possible that Augustine also took from these Adoptionist 
circles his phrase ‘original and actual sin?’ It would easily have 
travelled to the Taurus and South Armenia in the seventh and 
eighth centuries; for, like southern Spain, all the north of Africa, 
Egypt, and Syria were under Mohammedan rule, and intercourse 
along this line was comparatively safe and easy. 

But although the Paulicians adopted the phrase, they interpreted 
it in a way less hostile to humanity and to our convictions of divine 
love than many circles in which it has found a home. Little 
children, they taught, are without sin either original or actual; 
and therefore do not need to be baptized on that score. Perhaps 
the Paulicians were the more ready to receive the phrase ‘ original 
sin’ from the Latin west because their orthodox Greek neighbours 
rejected it, when it was proffered them early in the fifth century 
from that quarter. In any case Augustine is the Latin father who 
has most points of contact with the Paulicians, and whom we can 
most readily conceive of as having influenced their phraseology. 

Although there is very little in the Aey which can be set down to 
Armenian and racial influence, yet there is much in it peculiarly 
opposed to the practices of the orthodox Armenians, and even 
more calculated to give them offence than to hurt orthodox Greeks. 
For in the Armenian Church the principle of heredity counted for 
much. The old priestly families went on after the introduction of 
Christianity just as they went on before it. The catholicate itself 


CXXVili THE KEY OF TRUTH 


was at first hereditary in the Arsacide priestly family of Gregory the 
Illuminator; and the old shrine of Vahagn, the family temple of 
Gregory at Ashtishat, became the mother church of Armenia, and 
belonged to the clan long after the vices or heterodoxy of Gregory’s 
descendants made it necessary to choose the Catholicos from the 
rival and equally old priestly family of Albianos. For centuries the 
bishoprics of certain dioceses ran in certain families ; and down to 
the thirteenth century these families kept all but their own sons out 
of the priesthood. Not but that the Greeks, according to Galanus 
(Conctliat. Eccl. Arm. pars i. ch. 17), at an early time pointed out 
the evils of this system; for it was already combated at the sixth 
general Synod in 680, when it was resolved that suitable candi- 
dates for the priesthood in Armenia should not be refused because 
they did not belong to priestly families. It was probably the example 
of the Paulicians which led to this canon being made. Such good 
advice, however, made no impression on a race so conservative as 
the Armenian; and in the thirteenth century Nerses of Lambron 
waxes bitter in his complaints of this hereditary system, which still 
prevailed. ‘We see,’ he writes (op. οὐ, p. 517), ‘the Church of 
Christ among us enslaved carnally and made a carnal inheritance. 
Enslaved not to aliens or to heathen, but to our own senseless desires 
and barbarous intendants.’ ‘This relic of barbarism, along with 
simony, he says elsewhere (p. 548), ‘has been the ruin of the 
Armenian Church.” There can be no doubt that the Paulician 
principle of election was very inimical to this hereditary system, 
and was felt to be so by the Armenian historian Aristaces, who 
makes it a special cause of complaint against Jacob, the convert of 
the Thonraki, that he began to e/ec¢ his priests for their spiritual 
merits alone and in disregard of family considerations. 

The same historian notices the hostility of the Paulicians to the 
institution of blood-offerings for the expiation of the sins of 
the dead, which still exists even in Georgia. ‘The Armenians have 
a special ritual for such offerings. The Paulicians, in their opposi- 
tion to this interesting relic of the pre-Christian epoch, were the 
spokesmen of a higher conception of sin and repentance. 

The third practice of the orthodox Armenians specially opposed 
by the Paulicians was that of consecrating holy crosses. It was 
the Christian analogue to the ancient practice of setting up Bethels 
or holy stones. When the power of Christ had, by suitable 
invocations, been got into the stone, it became an object of 
adoration and worship, and capable of working miracles. This, 


AFFILIATION TO-ST. PAUL CxXxix 


like the other two practices mentioned, did not escape the censure 
of the orthodox Greeks; but the Paulicians went so far as to 
destroy these crosses when they could. And in parts of Armenia 
the word cross-stealer is still synonymous with outlaw or brigand. 
The modern Armenian novelist, Raffi of Tiflis, lately deceased, 
wrote a novel entitled Zhe Cross-Stealers, in which he describes 
one of their villages. They probably still exist in Siunik and 
other districts south-east of Tiflis, and must be descendants of 
Paulicians. 

There was in the Adoptionist Christology nothing to lead its 
adherents to specially affiliate themselves to the Apostle Paul. 
It is possible, however, that, when they heard themselves called 
Pauliani or Paulicians, they, whether from ignorance or other 
reasons, ventured upon such an affiliation. According to Gregory 
Magistros they would say: ‘ We love Paul, and we execrate Peter.’ 
We hear nothing about it in the Armenian sources, but it is 
certain from the Escurial document that they named their con- 
eregations in the Western Taurus after the communities to 
whom St. Paul addressed his epistles, and several of their great 
missionaries took from the same epistles what were probably 
baptismal names, received when they were baptized into the 
Church. Mananali is the most Eastern of the congregations in 
which we hear of this innocent Schwdrmeret. Further east, in 
Mush and Thonrak, the Armenian sources give no hint of it. 
It may therefore have been an idiosyncrasy of those congregations 
in which Greeks were perhaps more numerous than Armenians. 

For we must never forget that the Paulician Church was not the 
national Church of a particular race, but, an old form of the 
apostolic Church ; and that it included within itself Syrians, Greeks, 
Armenians, Africans, Latins, and various other races. Lurking in 
South-eastern Armenia, when it was nearly extirpated in the Roman 
Empire, it there nursed its forces in comparative security under the 
protection of the Persians and Arabs, and prepared itself for that 
magnificent career of missionary enterprise in the Greek world, 
which the sources relate with so much bitterness. These sources 
make it plain that many of its apostles were Armenians; and so 
notorious was it to the Greeks that the centre of the new religious 
revolt was in Armenia, that in the tenth and eleventh century the 
very name ‘Armenian’ was synonymous to the mind of a Greek 
believer with ‘Paulician.’ I should therefore conjecture that the 
renaming of congregations was a propagandist device peculiar to 


1 


CXXX ΤΗΝ KEY OF TRUCE 


the Western Taurus, and one which was barely in vogue in Taron 
and Vaspurakan, where the Church had always, so to speak, been 
at home. It was an attempt to give to the name of Paulicians or 
Pauliani, which for those who coined it meant ‘ followers of Paul of 
Samosata,’ the significance of ‘followers of St. Paul.’ 

The prejudice against St. Peter in the Paulician Church was also 
less real than their antagonists pretended. It could not, of course, 
go back to the apostolic age in which the relations of the two great 
apostles were notoriously strained ; and the Key goes far to explain 
the genesis of this particular libel on the Paulician Church, when, 
on page 93’, it adds at the end of the list of the apostles the 
remark: ‘These are the twelve apostles on whom the Church rests, 
and not on Peter alone.’ It was hostility to the papal pretensions, 
and to the secular prostitution of St. Peter’s name and authority by 
the usurping Bishops of Rome, which inspired this remark. The 
first recorded case, as Prof. Harnack points out (Dogmen-Gesch. 
Ρ. 666), of a Christian who, taking his stand on the rule of faith, 
was yet condemned and excommunicated as a heretic, is that of 
Theodotus, whom the Bishop Victor so excommunicated in the year 
190. Nearly one hundred years later the same policy of usurpation 
and extirpation of old and respectable Christian opinion was 
exampled in the great triumph of the Roman bishop over Paul 
of Samosata. It was a triumph of the disputed see of St. Peter, 
namely Rome, over the true one, Antioch. It is not surprising 
therefore that the writer of the Key, who inherited the traditions of 
the old Roman Adoptionists, sees in the Pope of Rome the arch- 
enemy of the truth, and rebukes his pretensions accordingly. 

We shall more conveniently discuss the ritual use of the name 
Peter in the ceremony of election when we come to treat of the 
relation of the Paulicians to the Albigenses. We will now pass on 
to the whole question of their relation to famous sects before and 
after them with whom they have, by various writers, been identified. 

Of their being descended from, or even connected with, the 
Marcionite Church, as Dr. Mkrttschian and others have suggested, 
there is no proof whatever; any more than there is of their being 
Manicheans, as the Greeks pretended. The true descendants of 


* In the Armenian MS. (see p. 28 of the printed Armenian text) the words: 
‘The head of all’. . . as far as ‘ wiles of devils’ are written on a new title-page 
as it were and surrounded by rude scroll-work. The writer felt that, in the 
rituals of baptism and election now to be described in detail, he was about to 
set forth the real constitution of the Church, The new title-page and its 
contents are therefore very appropriate. 


MANICHEAN ELECT ONES exon 


Marcion were certainly the Manicheans, and Mani was anathema- 
tized by the Paulician Church along with other heretics of the old 
time. ‘You have enumerated the heresies of old, and have 
anathematized them,’ writes Gregory Magistros (p. 142) to the Pauli- 
cians of Thulail in Great Armenia. ‘They want to teach us, and 
so enumerate the groups of heretics one after the other, and say: 
“We do not belong to these; for they have long ago broken off 
from the Church, and have been excluded”’ (p. 147). The Greek 
sources attest the same. And the Paulicians no doubt anathema- 
tized exactly the same groups of heretics whom the Adoptionist 
Bishop Archelaus’, when he is combating Mani, anathematizes. 
They are indeed the heretics of old, namely, Valentinus, Marcion, 
Tatian, and Sabellius. And the contents of Zhe Key of Truth 
enable us to see why the Paulicians anathematized Mani. His 
system was no less remote from theirs than was orthodox 
Catholicism, under many aspects the western counterpart of 
Manicheism. The differences are so obvious that I shall be 
content only to notice the few points of resemblance. 

The Manichean Church, then, was divided into the two orders of 
Electi and Audztores, of perfect? and catechumeni. ‘There is thus 
the name e/ecfin common. But whereas the Manichean elect one 
was an ascetic of an extreme and Hindoo type, celibate, and living 
only on herbs, which the ‘auditores’ must gather for him lest he 
should violate his holiness by taking the life even of a vegetable, 
the Paulician elect one on the contrary was married, lived and 
dressed like other men, and worked for his living. So we read 
that Sergius was a woodcutter and earned his livelihood by the 
work of his own hands. And since Manicheism differed from 
Paulicianism with all the differences which must arise out of the 
deification and dissipation of Jesus Christ into a phantom or 
mahatma as against the frank recognition of his humanity, we must 
conclude that the two Churches derived the title of elect one not one 
from the other, but both through a joint inheritance of some remote 
early type of Christian organization, so early and so remote that 
the memory of it is lost. Another point in common is the venera- 
tion, almost amounting to adoration, with which in both churches 
the elect ones were regarded. But it is not clear that this sort of 
thing was peculiar to the Manicheans and Paulicians. Ignatius, in 
language which somewhat grates on the ear of a modern layman, 
declares that the bishop is, in relation to his congregation, not 


1 Acts of Archel. c. 37. 
Wea 


CXXXil HE GEY OF “GROTH 


merely Christ, but God. Zhe Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ 
expressly assigns to the teacher of the word the dignity of the 
Lord, of whose spirit he is the inspired organ. And, in judging 
the Paulicians on this point, we must bear in mind, first, that their 
conception of priesthood, like the Montanist idea of prophecy, was 
easily distorted by their enemies and turned into an occasion of 
scoffing and ribaldry ; and secondly, that in their view, Jesus was 
never God, never creator and sustainer of the universe, as he came 
to be regarded among the orthodox Catholics, when they super- 
imposed on the man of Nazareth the schematism of the pre- 
existent divine logos of the Alexandrine Jews. It was therefore 
a lighter thing to regard the recipient of the spirit of Christ in the 
way in which the Paulicians regarded their elect ones, than it was 
for the other churches to regard a priest or bishop as the Christ or 
Lord of the laity. 

But although the Paulicians had so little in common with 
the Manicheans, it does not follow that there were no Arme- 
nian Manicheans. There were; and Gregory Magistros, Nerses 
Claiensis, and Paul of Taron clearly distinguish them from the 
Thonraki or Paulicians. These Armenian Manicheans were 
the Avevordig or children of the sun, of whom a description is 
given from the works of Nerses in Appendix V. To it I refer 
the reader, who, underneath the exaggerations and falsifications of 
the Armenian writer, will yet find their Manichean character 
clearly recognizable. It only remains to add that the sect was of 
ancient foundation in Armenia; for, according to the Fihrist’s 
Arabic account of Mani, he addressed a letter to the Armenians ; 
and Samuel of Ani, a chronicler of the eleventh century, records 
that in the year 588 the commentary of Mani on the Gospels was 
translated into the Armenian tongue. If it could be recovered, 
it would be a monument of extraordinary value and interest; but 
since the sect was anathematized alike by Paulicians and by 
orthodox Armenians, such a work is not likely to have survived’. 


* See below, p. clxxxi. 

? Samuel, in the eleventh century, chronicles the bare fact, but Kirakus (died 
1272) gives, probably from old sources, though in a confused way, further 
interesting details (Of. Armenice, ed. Venice, p. 29): ‘In the tenth year of the 
Lord Abraham, and thirty-seventh of the Armenian era (=588) eloquent 
Syrians came into Armenia and wished to sow the heresy of Nestorius, but 
were anathematized and persecuted. However, some received them, and they 
it was who translated their false books, the Gortosak, the Kirakosak, “The 
Vision of Paul,” “ The Repentance of Adam,” “ The Diathéké (Arm. Z77adek) 


CHRIST IMMANENT IN THE ELECT cxxxiii 


I have not deemed it necessary to detail the wide differences by 
which the Manicheans were parted from the Paulicians. Before 
the discovery of The Key of Truth it was necessary to do so; and 
J. Friedrich has done it with remarkable acumen and success. 
Few inquirers are rewarded with so speedy a verification of their 
views as he; nor indeed are many inquirers in this field possessed 
of a faculty of judgement so sober and cautious. But the difference 
of the Paulician canon of scripture from the Manichean was all 
along capable of proof, and should have saved students from falling 
into so radical an error. We know too little of the Manichean 
tenets to explain what they signified by calling their priests the 
elect. But one cannot read the authorities for the study of Mani- 
cheism without realizing that it was a system which, probably 
through the mediation of Marcion, cast back its roots into the 
earliest period of Christianity. They were moreover, through 
Marcion, the peculiar disciples of St. Paul, as were no teachers of 
any other school. And their relative Conservatism is proved by 
the way in which they adhered to the canon and kept alive the 
anti-Jewish rancour of Marcion, long after the assured triumph 
of Christianity over Judaizing influences made the one and the 
other anachronisms. 

We have already made the remark that the Key does not call 
outright the elect ones Christs. It is certain, however, from 
the confession of the year 18371, and from the passage about the 
Eucharist at the end of the Catechism, that they did so. We 
cannot tell what the lost chapters of the Δεν contained, but the 
whole drift of what remains proves that they so regarded them. 
According to it, the entire life of the Christian should be a rehearsal 
of the life of Christ ; and the body of believers, the Church, is in 
a mysterious manner the body of Christ. ‘I have been crucified,’ 
says Paul (Gal. ii. 20), ‘with Christ ; yet I live, and yet no longer 
I, but there liveth in me Christ: and that life which I now live in 
the flesh, I live through faith in the Son of God, who loved me and 
surrendered himself up for my sake. So in John xiv. 3: ‘That 
where I am, ye also may be’; and John xvii. 23: ‘I am in them, 
and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one.’ Paul 


Childhood of the Lord,” and “ Zééos and the Grape-cluster of Blessing,” and the 
not-to-be-hidden books, and “ The Explanation of the Gospel of Mani.’”” And he 
that believes in them is cursed by the orthodox.’ Kirakos mixes up the 
Nestorians and Manicheans in one account; with the exception of the last, we 
can hardly say which book belonged to which sect. 

1 See above, p. xxvii. 


CXXXiv THE KEY OF TRUTH 


classified his utterances according as it was Christ that spoke in 
him or as he, the mere man, spoke. So in Hermas, Mand. ii. 8, 9 ; 
so also the Didaché, so also Montanus, to all three of which refer- 
ences we shall recur later on. 

It was a belief which lent itself to caricature; and behind the 
libels of the enemies of Paul of Samosata, reported in Eusebius, 
Hist. vii. 30, we may discern the truth that he was venerated by 
the faithful as a Lord, as one in whom God ‘had made his spirit 
to dwell’ (Jas. iv. 5), as the image and successor on earth of Christ. 
In some such way the Paulician elect were assuredly regarded, 
and the very idea of an elect one, as the name implies, was that 
of a vessel of election, of a man chosen by the spirit in the same 
way in which the man Jesus was chosen. The spirit had descended 
upon him and abode in him, rendering him a new man, one in 
soul and body with Christ. The idea of such an union of the 
believer made perfect by faith with Christ was very old in 
Christianity. Thus, in the ancient tract De aleatoribus, 3, we 
have the Jogzon: ‘Nolite contristare Spiritum Sanctum qui in 
uobis est, et nolite extinguere lumen, quod in uobis effulsit.’ 
In the same spirit are addressed the words of the still older 
pseudo-Cyprianic tract, De duobus mont. c. 13, ‘Ita me in uobis 
uidete, quomodo quis uestrum se uidet in aquam aut in speculum’ 
—an illustration the more striking because, as Harnack? points 
out, this early Latin tract is a monument of the Adoptionist 
faith. We often meet with the idea in Tertullian, e.g. De Poeni?. 
το, ‘ Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere : 
condoleat universum, et ad remedium conlaboret, necesse est. In 
uno et altero ecclesia est, ecclesia vero Christus. Ergo cum te ad 
fratrum genua protendis, Chrzstum contrectas, Chrisfum exoras. 
Aeque illi cum super te lachrymas agunt, Chris¢/us patitur, Christus 
patrem deprecatur.’ So also in his De Ora/zone, c. xx. 26, ‘ Fratrem 
domum tuam introgressum ne sine oratione dimiseris. Vidisti, 
inquit, fratrem? Vedist’ Dominum tuum: maxime advenam, ne 
angelus forte sit.’ 

In these noble words is revealed to us the fact, which in his 
letter against the Paulicians Gregory of Narek distorts, basing upon 
it a charge of anthropolatry®. The same adoration was, in the 
Middle Ages, paid by the believers of the Albigensian Church to 


' Dogmen-Gesch. i. (ed. 3), p. 676. 


* This charge also meant that they adored one, to wit Jesus, who was from 
their standpoint merely human. 


TERTULLIAN ON VIRGIN AND EUCHARIST cxxxv 


their elect or perfect ones. Thus in the Lzber Sententiarum 
(culpa 61) one Gulielmus confesses before the inquisitors that ‘he 
once adored James Auterius, the heretic, with his hands joined, 
bowing himself three times upon a bench before him, and saying 
each time “benedicite.”’ Soa female heretic Gulielma (L720. Senfent. 
33), after being ‘received into the damnable sect of heresy’ in her 
last illness, ‘caused herself to be adored as a heretic in their 
damnable manner.’ 

There remain two more points in respect of which the Paulicians 
remind us of Tertullian. ‘The one is their attitude towards the 
cult of the Virgin Mary. They denied her perpetual virginity, and 
taught that Christ expressly denied her to be blessed. So to 
Tertullian’ the mother of Christ was the type of the unbelieving 
synagogue, ‘ Quale ergo erat, si docens non tanti facere matrem 
aut fratres, quanti Dei verbum, ipse Dei verbum nuntiata matre 
et fraternitate desereret? Negavit itaque parentes, quomodo 
docuit negandos pro Dei opere. Sed alias figura est synagogae in 
matre abiuncta (? abiurata) et Iudaeorum in fratribus incredulis. 
Foris erat in illis Israel: discipuli autem novi intus audientes, et 
credentes, et cohaerentes Christo, ecclesiam deliniabant: quam 
potiorem matrem’, et digniorem fraternitatem, recusato carnali 
genere nuncupat. The belief in the perpetual virginity is also 
alien to Tertullian, who here again confirms the antiquity of the 
Paulician teaching. In the fourth century Helvidius was able to 
plead his authority in favour of common sense exegesis: against 
such testimony Jerome, arguing for the later view, could find no 
better argument than to write of Tertullian ‘ecclesiae homo non 
fait? *. 

The other point concerns the Eucharist, about which the 
Paulician theory is not clear or consistent with itself. The Greek 
source, Scor. viii, says that the Paulicians blasphemed against the 
divine mysteries of the Holy Communion of the body and blood, 
and taught that it was his words which the Lord gave to his disci- 
ples, when he said ‘ Take, eat and drink,’ and not bread and 
wine. ‘Nor is it right,’ he says, ‘that (mere) bread and wine be 
offered.” In the same way Tertullian (De Res. Carn. c. 37) says 
that in John vi the flesh and blood signify simply Christ’s life- 


1 De Carne Christi, ch. 7. 

2 So according to Scor. vii the Paulicians called the Virgin τὴν ἄνω Ἵερου- 
σαλήμ, ἐν ἣ πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθε Χριστός. See p. xlvi. 

8. Ὁ Helvidium: ‘Et de Tertulliano quidem nihil amplius dico, quam 
Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse.’ 


CXXXVI DHE KEY OF TRUGH 


giving words to be received in faith: ‘ Itaque sermonem constituens 
vivificatorem, quia spiritus et vita sermo, eundem etiam carnem 
suam dixit: quia et sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam 
vitae appetendus et devorandus auditu et ruminandus intellectu et 
fide digerendus.’ This is written as a comment on the text John vi. 
63, and also on the following : ‘Qui audit sermones meos, et credit 
in eum qui me misit, habet vitam eternam et in iudicium non 
veniet, sed transiet de morte ad vitam.’ There is a passage in the 
Paulician Catechism of exactly similar import. At the same time 
that he thus attempted a spiritual interpretation of the rite, 
Tertullian also held the grosser view of an actual change or 
metabolé of the elements into the real body and blood of Christ. 
And similarly the Paulicians fell into the same materialistic 
language. But they cannot have entertained in its full extent the 
superstition of transubstantiation; for the body of Christ into 
which the loaf was changed, was (as we have seen above, p. lv) 
equally the body of the elect ministrant. And as the unity of the 
flesh of the elect with that of Christ was of a spiritual kind— 
the unity to wit of one that abode in Christ and Christ in him— 
so the change of the elements according to the Paulician view, 
though it is pronounced to be a real and true change, must ulti- 
mately have been conceived of as a spiritual, or as we should say, 
a figurative’ kind. I think that what Canon Gore’ has said about 
Tertullian is equally true of the Paulicians: ‘It is perhaps safest 
to assume that Tertullian was uncertain in his own mind as to the 
exact meaning which he assigned to the eucharistic language of 
the Church and the exact nature which he attributed to the 
eucharistic gifts.’ If we had the Paulician sacramentary we would 
know more about their view. All we can safely say is that in 
whatever sense the elect one was Christ (zo/ Jesus), in the same 
sense the elements became the body of Christ. The Catechism 
declares that the blessing of the elements produced the change of 
them into the body of Christ, no doubt by introducing into them 
the same spirit which at baptism entered Christ. This idea of 
a spirit introduced by invocation into a material thing was common 
alike to Christianity and to the older cults which preceded it. The 


' So in the Canons of St. Sahak (400-450) it is declared that the bread and 
wine are offered on the altar as a ¢yfe of the vivifying body and blood of Christ 
(ed. Ven. 1853, p. 106, Old Arm.). The language of Zhe Key of Truth is 
identical, and in it we must have the primitive view of the Armenian Church. 

2 Dissertations, ed. 1, p. 312. 


ORIGIN OF THE BOGOMILES CXXXVII 


Paulicians rejected it as applied to stone crosses and perhaps to 
the water of the baptismal font. But it was natural enough that 
they should turn to it for an explanation or working theory of the 
Eucharistic mystery. 

Large bodies of Paulicians were transported to Thrace in the 
eighth century and again in the tenth. The first of these emigra- 
tions! was organized by Constantine Copronymus, himself in all 
probability a member of the Paulician Church. Cedrenus 5, follow- 
ing Theophanes, relates that in its new home the heresy spread 
and flourished. It was again an Armenian emperor, John 
Tzimiskes, who in 970 deported another body of 100,000 Paulicians 
to the line of the Danube. One hundred years before the latter 
date we learn from Peter of Sicily, who resided nine months in the 
Paulician stronghold Tephrik, that the Paulicians of the Taurus 
were sending missions to convert the young Bulgarian nation to 
their religion. It is certain that in a large measure they succeeded 
in their object, and the result was the movement of the Bogomiles. 
We only know this sect from its enemies, who, true to their habit 
of distorting facts, half wilfully, half in ignorance, portrayed its 
adherents as Manicheans. It is certainly true, if the fragmentary 
accounts of them which survive are to be trusted, that they had 


1 The Armenian historian, Sebeos (ch. 6), relates that at a much earlier date 
the Roman Emperor, Maurice, had a scheme for the wholesale deportation to 
Thrace of the Armenian population living in his dominions. He at the same 
time proposed to Chosrow that he should deport the Armenians under his rule, 
i.e. in Vaspurakan, to the fareast. ‘ They are a crooked and rebellious race, 
he wrote to Chosrow, ‘interposed between us and for ever disturbing our rela- 
tions. Come then, I will collect mine and deport them wholesale to Thrace. 
You do the same with yours, and have them led away to the East. Then if 
they die, it is our enemies who die. And if they kill others, it is our enemies 
they will kill. And we shall live in peace. For as long as any of them are 
left on earth, we will have no rest.’ The Adoptionist Armenians were proba- 
bly more refractory to the Byzantine rule than the orthodox ones, for in their 
case religion as well as race was antagonistic. Maurice’s plan was not carried 
out, though Chosrow agreed, owing to the opposition of the Armenians them- 
selves; but in his reign there were already Armenian forces of foot and horse 
defending the line of the Danube under Armenian officers, 6. g- under Mushel 
Mamikonean. It is clear that the wholesale deportation of heterodox Armenians 
to Thrace had long been contemplated as a measure of high policy; and 
Copronymus was the first Emperor able to carry out the plan, because he had 
their confidence and sympathized with them. As late as 1603 Shah Abbas 
revived and carried out the plan of Chosrow, and deported the inhabitants of 
South-eastern Armenia ev masse to Ispahan. 

2 Ed. Bonn, ii. p. 10 (p. 453). 


CXXXVili THE KEY OF TRUTH 


taken up Manichean elements, from which the Paulician Church 
was free. But it is more probable that they were by their perse- 
cutors merely assumed to be Manicheans, and described accordingly. 
It was much easier to copy out one of the many accounts of the 
Manicheans which were still in circulation, than to inquire what 
their tenets really were. Thus Peter of Sicily, though he lived 
among the Paulicians for several months, was content to copy out 
the Escurial document into his history’. So was Photius, who 
claims to have been present at many inquisitions of Paulicians, and 
to have learned their opinions at first hand. Like Peter of Sicily, 
he was blind and deaf where heretical opinion was in question. 

We must then be doubly cautious not to believe all we read 
about the Bogomiles. What has been written about them appears 
to me to be for the most part hopelessly confused and untrust- 
worthy. To sift it at all would require a separate work. I shall 
therefore pass it by one side, only trusting that some scholar 
equipped with a knowledge of the old Slavonic dialects will some 
day make it his task to write scientifically about them. According 
to Mr. Arthur Evans, who has written more fruitfully about them 
than any other author whom I have consulted, there are still com- 
munities of them in existence in the Balkan peninsula. Surely 
a diligent search made in likely places by a sympathetic person 
would result in the finding of some of their ancient books. Their 
literature is indispensable as a connecting-link between the Pauli- 
cians and the mediaeval Cathars of Europe. 

As to the Armenian Paulicians themselves, it is certain that they 
held their own for many centuries in and about Philippopolis. 
We hear of them in the chronicles of the Latin Crusaders; and 
then there is a long blank, just as there is in the native Armenian 
sources, reaching to the eighteenth century. Then a chance 
remark in one of Lady Mary Wortley Montague’s charming letters 
from the east reveals to us that there was still in Philippopolis 
a fairly flourishing congregation of Paulicians. For she writes 
from Adrianople, April 1, 1717, thus: ‘I found at Philippopolis 
a sect of Christians that call themselves Paulines. ‘They show an 
old church where they say St. Paul preached, and he is their 
favourite saint, after the same manner that St. Peter is at Rome ; 
neither do they forget to give him the preference over the rest of 
the Apostles.’ We see that in 1717 they gave the same account 


? Yet he pretended to have obtained in Tephrik a more accurate account of 
them (ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτῶν μαθών). See Migne, 2), G. vol. civ. col. 1241, 


PAULICIANS AND CATHARI CxxKIx 


of themselves to this gifted English lady as they had given in 
Thonrak 700 years before to Gregory Magistros. Another hun- 
dred years elapses, and we again hear of them in Philippopolis in 
1819, when according to the Adlgem. Encyclop. of Meier u. Kamtz 
(Leipzig, 1840, art. Paulikiani), a priest of the Greek Church in 
Philippopolis, in his ἐγχειρίδιον περὶ τῆς ἐπαρχίας Φιλιππουπόλεως 
(Wien, 1819, p. 27), says that not only among the inhabitants of 
that city, but in five or six neighbouring villages there lived 
numerous Paulicians, who had long before given up all Manichean 
tenets and become complete Papists (καθ᾽ ὅλον παππίσται). Not 
much renunciation was needed, however, to resign tenets which 
they had never held. 

The Latin Crusaders also found them in Syria’, always on the 
side of the Saracens. Thus Curburan the Turk brings to Antioch 
from the east an army of Saracens, Arabs, Persians, and certain 
other troops who novitiis censebantur vocabulis, Publicani scilicet, 
Curti, Azimitae et Agulani?. There was a Castra Publicanorum ὃ 
held by Armenians in the valley of Antioch ; and there was, in 1099, 
a fortress manned by them called Arché, near Tripolis*. We read 
of them also at Neapolis in Palestine, and near Ascalon as well late 
in the eleventh century. 

It is nearly sixty years later that we have our first notices of 
them in Europe under the name Publicani, which was the Eastern 
way of pronouncing Pauliciani. Sometimes this name is misunder- 
stood and rendered Zélonariz, the Greek equivalent of tax-gatherers. 
Often, to complete a spiteful blunder, the name Sadducaet is added 
because in the Gospels Publicans and Sadducees are associated. 
And this seems to have been a cheap device for bringing them into 
contempt as early as the eleventh century, for Gregory Magistros 
(p. 142) warns the Syrian Catholicos agairist their Sadducean leaven. 
According to the chronicle of Gulielmus, a.p. 1197, several Pauli- 
cians were condemned at the Council of Oxford in the year 1160, 
because they detested Holy Baptism, the Eucharist, and marriage. 
This means no more than that they rejected the institution of infant 
baptism approved of by their persecutors. They were Germans, 
adds Gulielmus, who, ‘having taken their rise in Gascony, from 


1 See the references in Petri Tudebodi de Hierosol. itin. iii. 3, p. 26, and iv. 
5» Ρ- 33- 

2 See Guzbertz, Abbatis Gesta, 189 H, under year 1099. 

3 See Baldricus, Episc. Dolensis, B 39, var. 16, under date 1097. 

* Tbid., Ὅτ D, B 105, var. 19. 


cxl THE KEY OF TRUTH 


some unknown author, had multiplied like the sand of the sea in 
France, Spain, Italy, and Germany.’ A few years later, 1179, the 
Publicani were condemned by name in the third Council of 
the Lateran, Can. 27. In this they are identified with the Albi- 
genses about Toulouse, and also with the Cathari and Patrini. In 
the year 1198 Robert of Auxerre, in his chronicle, tells us that about 
that time the A/aeres?s had already widely ramified; and that at 
Nismes the Abbot of St. Martin’s and the Dean of the Greater 
Church had been infected with it and condemned at the Council of 
Sens. Lastly, in 1228, Ralf of Coggeshall, in his chronicle, writes 
that in the year 1174 the pernicious heresy of the Publicani arose 
in France. It was thus agreed on all hands that the centre of the 
diffusion of the heresy was in France and in Gascony. That 
the heresy mentioned by these writers was akin to Paulicianism is 
certain. That it was either identical with it, or a direct offshoot of 
it, is improbable. 

But before we pass to the Albigenses, let us notice the heretics 
of Céln and the neighbourhood described by Eckbert, Abbot of 
Schonauge in 1160. ‘When I was a Canon at Bonn,’ says this 
writer, ‘I and my like-minded friend, Bertolphus, frequently dis- 
puted with such persons, and I paid great attention to their errors 
and defences.’ We learn from him that these heretics were very 
numerous in all countries, and were called in Germany Catharz, in 
Flanders Pzphies, in France 7zxerant, because they were weavers. 
They were well equipped -with sacred texts to defend their own 
errors and assail the Catholic faith ; they taught that the true faith 
of Christ existed nowhere except in their own conventicles, which 
they held in cellars, in workshops, and such-like underground 
places. They said that they led the life of apostles: they alone 
had a genuine priesthood, which the Roman Church had lost. 
They rejected the belief in purgatory, and taught that baptism of 
infants availed nothing, because they could not seek baptism by 
themselves, nor make profession of faith. And in secret, but more 
generally, they declared that water baptism was not profitable to 
salvation at all, but that only a special baptism of their own by the 
Holy Ghost and fire could save men. Except for this last particular 
these heretics might be at once identified with Paulicians; but 
other details which Eckbert supplies about them imply, if he spoke 
the truth, that they were deeply timged with Manichean beliefs. 
For they kept the festival of Bema, in which the death of Mani 
was commemorated ; but his friend Bertolph said that they called 


CATHARS REJECTED CHILD-BAPTISM cxli 


it Malilosa, and kept it not in the spring but in the autumn. The 
perfect members of the sect eschewed flesh, and were celibate. 
They denied that Christ had true human flesh, or humanity at all ; 
and said that he only had an appearance of human flesh, and made 
a mere pretence of death and resurrection. 

When this writer adds that he's 2nformant told jim that the annual 
great festival of these heretics was called among those with whom 
he was connected, not Bema, but Aalilosa}, our faith in the first- 
hand character of Eckbert’s knowledge is shaken ; and when he 
further on appeals to Augustine, we feel sure that he is retailing to 
us not the truth, but second-hand lucubrations of his own, based 
on that saint’s works against the Manicheans. These were in the 
hands of every mediaeval monk; and, as it was an age in which 
men were incapable of describing anything accurately, it is useless 
to look for truth in the accounts of heresy. The persecutors 
simply copied out earlier fathers like Augustine, and attributed to 
the persecuted the opinions which they thought, from their own 
reading of these older authorities, they ought to hold. It is thus 
impossible to say whether these heretics of Cologne and Bonn 
were Paulicians or not. I suspect that they were a remnant of an 
older Adoptionist Christianity, and not in the least Manichean. 

In regard to the Albigenses we are on safer ground, for here we 
have a genuine writing of the sect to build our conclusions upon. 
This is the so-called Cathar ritual, of which, because of its impor- 
tance, I add an English translation in my Sixth Appendix. It is 
preserved in a MS. of the first half of the thirteenth century in the 
Library of Lyon. Composed in the old Provencal tongue, it is 
certainly older than the MS. in which alone it has survived to us. 
1 have added it among the documents illustrative of Zhe Key of 
Truth, for, so far as I know, it has never been translated into 
English, or received the attention it deserves. We are immediately 
struck by the resemblance there is between the rite of Consolamen- 
tum which it contains and the Paulician rite of election ; and the 
resemblance is punctuated by the independent information of 
Evervinus, that a member of the sect who had been admitted to 
this grade of initiation in the sect was commonly called an elect 
one. It was a spiritual baptism by the imposition of hands, which 
communicated to him who received it the plenary inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit, along with the power to bind and loose. It was 


1 1 have seen no attempt to explain this name. Could it be Syriac, and was 
the feast a feast of prophetic utterances, or of tongues? 


cxlii THE KEY OF TRUTE 


not the baptism instituted by John with water, but the baptism 
with the Spirit and with fire. Jesus bestowed it on his disciples 
when he blew upon them and said, ‘ Receive the Holy Spirit’ And 
they had handed it down in unbroken tradition to the Christians or 
good men who formed the Church. It involved a higher degree of 
abstinence from all forms of moral evil, a higher degree of self- 
renunciation than was expected of a layman or mere believer. It 
was preceded by another rite, which the Lyon MS. also contains, 
that of giving the Lord’s Prayer along with the Book of the Gospel to 
one who was already a believer. These two rites of the reception 
of the Lord’s Prayer along with the Gospel and of the Consola- 
mentum, taken together, seem to correspond to the single Paulician 
rite of election. Yet they by no means wholly coalesce in their 
import. For in the Consolamentum the believer receives into his 
heart the spirit which cries Adda, Adda; he is adopted a son of 
God and wins eternal life, and that is quite as much the import of 
the Paulician rite of baptism as of the Paulician rite of election. 
The Paulician rites of name-giving and baptism with water do 
not find their analogue at all in the Lyon MS., though we cannot 
argue from their absence that they were without them. Probably 
a person became a simple member of the Church, a credens, as he is 
called in this document, by receiving water baptism. And perhaps 
this inferior rite is not given in the Lyon MS., because it was 
presupposed. That they rejected infant baptism may be believed 
from the reports of the Inquisition and of their orthodox enemies. 
Thus Peter Chrysogonus, a.p. 1178 (Maitland, p. 165), relates that 
the heretics of Toulouse taught that baptism did not profit children. 
Peter Auterius, the great heresiarch of those parts in the early thir- 
teenth century, and probably one of the greatest religious teachers and 
reformers that France has ever seen, taught that the baptism of the 
Roman Church is of no avail to children (ibid. p. 237). Evervinus, 
A.D. 1147, testifies the same of the heretics of Cologne, as does 
Eckbert. The Waldenses, who must not be confused with the 
Albigeois, seem, from the testimony of Ebrardus, A.D. 1212, to 
have also rejected infant baptism (Maitland, p. 387). It is possible, 
however, that Ebrardus confused the Waldenses with the Albigeois. 
The Cathar ritual is less a form of clerical ordination than of 
spiritual baptism necessary to salvation, and so was given to men and 
women alike. It is preceded by the simple service of absolution of 
sins for the whole body of believers. It so far answers rather to the 
Paulician baptism than to their election. Yet it is probable that the 


THE CATHAR RITUAL OF LYON cxliii 


Paulician ordinal and the Cathar form of Consolamentum are both 
descended from a common source. For in both the candidate for 
admission takes the ritual name of Peter. In the Cathar form the 
rationale of this ritual appellation seems to have been lost; for it 
runs thus (p. 163): ‘And 27 the believer hath the name Peter, the 
elder shall say as follows: ‘‘ Peter,”’ &c. This is in the preliminary 
rite of the reception from the Church of the Lord’s Prayer and 
the book; but in the rite of Comsolamenfum he is again similarly 
addressed. In the Paulician rite it is not clear from the text as it 
stands, whether the candidate, after he has given to the formal ritual 
question of the bishop, ‘What is thy name?’ the equally formal 
answer, ‘Thy servant’s name is Peter,’ is to have this symbolic name 
confirmed to him by the bishop, or whether he has it taken away, 
and another name formally substituted for it. But we should 
surely adopt the former of the two alternatives. The bishop, 
after the manner of Christ in the Gospel, changes his name to that 
of Peter, in formal acknowledgement that he was now and hence- 
forth one on whom the Church of Christ was built. This was at 
once an appropriate symbolic usage, and a defiance of the usurping 
claims of the Bishop of Rome. On the other hand I cannot 
conceal from myself that there is evidence for an opposite inter- 
pretation. For the Greek source! assures us that the Paulicians 
treated the name of Peter as something of ill omen to be averted. 
If the candidate formally assumed the name, in order that the bishop 
might take it away.and substitute another than that of the apostle 
who had denied the Lord three times, it may have been a Pauline 
name, such as we know the Paulician leaders assumed, which was 
so substituted. It is possible even that the Greek writer of the 
Escurial document actually had before him the same text as the 
Key contains of the ritual of election, and fell into the misinter- 
pretation to which it lends itself. For we too feel its ambiguity. 
If the name Peter was taken away instead of being conferred, then 
the Albigensian ritual has reached a still more fossilized stage than 
we need suppose it to be in, if we accept the counter alternative. 
Either interpretation is equally a defiance hurled at Rome; but it 
hardly accords with the respect with which St. Peter, in spite of his 
faults so candidly recorded in the Gospel, is elsewhere regarded in 
the Key, and the deference with which his epistle is quoted, to 
suppose that the Paulicians ostentatiously flouted his name in their 
service of election. Amid all these doubts, however, two certainties 


1 See above, 107, 22. 2. 


cxliv THE KEY OF TRUTH 


stand forth: the one that in this symbolism we have a point of 
contact between the Albigeois and the Paulicians; the other that 
this Paulician ritual was either in Latin or in Greek, either by report 
or otherwise, known to the eighth or early ninth century author of 
the Escurial fragment. 

We have already dwelt on the curious identity there was between 
the European Cathars and the Paulicians in their theory of the 
Eucharist. A cursory perusal of the Leder Sententiarum, or of 
Moneta’s work, or of Maitland’s useful treatise, shows us many 
other points of resemblance. The Cathars, for example, rejected 
the adoration of the cross (Maitland, p. 240, note), and the doctrine 
of Purgatory was denied by the heretics of Cologne (ibid. p. 349), 
of Tréves (ibid. p. 354), and of Oxford (ibid. p. 366); and just as 
the Paulicians opposed the spiritual Church composed of believers 
to the edifices of stone, so did the Cathars. Thus we have Ebrardus 
naively upholding against them the proposition that ‘a building of 
stone ought to be called a church’ (ibid. p. 387); and Ermengard, 
A.D. 1200, argues for the same position (ibid. p. 380). Even the 
great St. Bernard, a.p. 1200, found it necessary to controvert the 
truth that the Most High dwelleth not in a temple made with hands, 
when he heard it affirmed by the persecuted Cathars (ibid. p. 376). 
The same charge was also made against the Albigeois as against 
the Paulicians that they repudiated marriage; the truth being this, 
that the heretics did not make a sacrament of it, as did the orthodox 
or persecuting Churches. It is also likely enough that the Cathars 
really taught celibacy to be the higher state. But did not their 
orthodox persecutors teach the same, following St. Pault? The 
truth is that teaching which was correct and apostolic in the mouth 
of the persecutor was devilish when it fell from the lips of the 
persecuted. Whatever the sentiment of the European Cathars may 
have been on such points, we know from the Ay that the Paulician 
bishop had to be a married man. They were therefore less morbidly 
ascetic than the Roman and Greek Churches. The inquisitors relate 
that the elect of the Albigeois had to be celibate. But this can hardly 
have been the case. For Peter Auterius, their leader in Toulouse, 
had a son James, of whom the records of the inquisition make 
frequent mention, As to the Paulicians, they simply followed in 
such matters the teaching of Paul in his pastoral letters; and it is 
likely that the Albigeois did the same. Any and every doctrine 
based on St. John or St. Paul could easily be misrepresented as 


1 See Hieronymus, C. Helvidium, passim. 


THE CATHARS NOT MANICHEANS cxlv 


Manichean ; and, what is more, if we knew the Manicheans them- 
selves as they really were, instead of having to trust to the reports 
of their enemies, we should probably find that they went no 
further in the direction of asceticism and monkery than did their 
persecutors, who indeed may be suspected, in this particular, of 
having copied them at the same time that they anathematized them. 

It is clear for another reason that the Albigenses were no mere 
Manicheans. The characteristic note of Manicheanism was the 
brusque rejection of the Old Testament writings; but in the Lyon 
MS. the Book of Solomon is quoted with approval. There is also 
good evidence that in their fasts they eschewed milk, cheese, eggs, 
meat, butter, all things in short (as Evervinus says, speaking of the 
heretics called Apostolici of Cologne) guae copulatione generantur. 
But this was and still is the canon of fasting observed in the 
eastern orthodox Churches, as also among strict adherents of the 
Roman Church. There is nothing specially Manichean about it, 
and the Paulicians probably conducted their fasts along the same 
lines. It was a rule of abstinence long anterior to Christianity ; 
for in Philo and in the Neo-Pythagorean Greek writers we have 
constant mention both of Jews and of Pagans who observed it. 
Of the characteristically Manichean precept to kill nothing, not 
even a plant, in order to eat it, we hear nothing in the reports of 
the Albigeois inquisition. It was probably a precept of Mani alone, 
and borrowed by him from the Jainas of India. Equally little does 
the Lyon MS, in any way confirm the charge of exaggerated 
dualism brought by the persecutors against the mediaeval Cathars, 
and we should probably attach little weight to it. With the same 
amount of ill-will, one could prove a similar charge against the ortho- 
dox Churches and against the New Testament itself ten times over. 

Much has been made of the practice called Hxdura, even by 
sensible writers like Maitland. But since the discovery of the 
Cathar ritual of Lyon, it is no longer possible to make it a charge 
against the Albigeois that they forced a believer, who during illness 
was consoled or hereticated (as the persecutors termed it), to starve 
himself or herself to death. On the contrary the elder, in giving the 
Lord’s Prayer to the sick person, exhorts her or him as follows: 
‘Never shall ye eat or drink anything without first saying this 
prayer. Was this an exhortation to starve themselves to death? 
The real abstinence imposed on the person consoled was ‘ to keep 
himself or herself from lying and swearing, and from all else 
forbidden by God.’ It is indeed clear from the Leder Sententiarum, 

k 


cxlvi THE KEY (OF ἘΠΕ 


or Report of the Toulouse inquisition itself, that many, after 
receiving the Consolamentum, hastened their death by self-starvation ; 
but it is equally clear why they did so. It was from fear that the 
cruelty of the inquisitors—and it was an age of fierce persecution 
which this book represents—might oblige them to recant and forfeit 
the assurance of eternal life which they had received. Thus in the 
Culpa, 76, a sick woman, Gulielma, after being consoled, urgently 
besought anotherwoman named Serdana and some other persons that 
her death might be hastened, fearing 10 be taken by the tnquisttors_for 
heresy. Yet Maitland (p. 235), who reports this very case of Endura, 
as it was called, speaks of ‘the horrible suicide, not only recom- 
mended, but required, in this sect. If there was any sin in such 
a practice, it was on the inhuman cruelty and fanaticism of the Latin 
Church that the guilt rested, not on the victims of clerical brutality. 
The Consolamentum or spiritual baptism of the Albigeois was 
vouchsafed, not only to men, but to women as well. But it does 
not appear that women could become elect ones in the Paulician 
Church. We are left in doubt, because the ordinal in the Key is 
not only a rite of election, but something more besides. It is also 
the rite of consecrating a minister or good shepherd of the Church. 
It therefore corresponds to the conferring of orders in the orthodox 
Churches. The Consolamentum, on the other hand, as given to sick 
persons, answers rather to last unction, and therefore was as much 
for women as for men. 

Another important point of difference between the Aey and 
the Cathar ritual is that the latter interprets the precepts, Matt. 
XXviii. 19, 20, and Mark xvi. 15, of the baptism with Spirit and fire 
alone ; the Aey, however, of a general baptism given to all adults, 
male and female, and expressly identified with the baptism of John, 
which was not by the Spirit and fire, but by water only. We need 
not dwell further on the discrepancies between the Paulician 
manual and the Albigensian. They are too profound for us to 
be able to suppose that either ritual is descended from the .other. 
Yet there is a clear affinity between them; and the easiest way of 
accounting for the facts is to suppose that both are descended from 
a common source. But this common source must have lain far 
back in the most primitive age of the Church. It was beyond 
question a very early Christianity, which survived, perhaps variously 
modified, in the Albigensian Church’. The same primitive faith, 


1 The Albigeois reserved the Sacramental bread in the. same way as did the 
Christians of Tertullian’s age. Their women took it about with them in their 


CATHAR INTERCOURSE WITH EAST cxlvii 


after going through another cycle of change of its own, has survived 
in the Paulician Church. How far back the common source lay 
we cannot tell; probably not later than the second century; and 
there can hardly have been any common development of the two 
systems later than the fourth. For similar reasons it is not possible 
to regard the Catharism of the Rhinelands in the early middle 
ages as a transplantation to the west of the Paulician Church of 
Asia Minor. 

Why then, it will be asked, do writers of the twelfth century give 
the name of Pudlicani to the Cathars of the west? I should 
conjecture that the Crusaders had returned from Syria with the 
knowledge of the corresponding eastern sect, and gave the name 
which they learned in the far east to the kindred heretics of the 
west. The very form of the name Puélicanz, and still more its 
equation with Zé/onarzd in the history of Hugo Pictavius (a.p. 1167), 
shows that the name had come westwards through Greek inter- 
mediaries, either from Antioch or Constantinople, in the neigh- 
bourhood of both of which places the Crusaders had come into 
contact, friendly or hostile, with Paulicians at a much earlier time, 
namely 1090 to 1100. It is not until fifty years after Hugo's 
identification and over a hundred years after the Crusades, namely 
in 1223, that, according to Matthew Paris, Conrad, the Pope’s 
legate, complains of direct relations between the Albigenses of 
France and the heretics of the east; and then it is not Paulician 
Armenians, but Bogomile Bulgarians, with whom they were in 
relation. They had, he says, a heresiarch, whom they called their 
pope, dwelling in the confines of the Bulgarians, of Croatia and 
Dalmatia, to whom they resorted that he might give them advice. 
The story indicates that by the year 1223 the Bogomiles of the 
Balkans had entered into some sort of intercourse with the Cathars 
of Toulouse. But it would be rash to conclude that the latter, of 
whom we already get glimpses as early as 1017 or 1022, were 
offshoots of the Paulicians. But here again we grope among 
uncertainties. For we are not sure whether the Canons of Orleans, 
burned at the latter date, were the same people to whom the 
name Albigenses was afterwards given. They were said to be 
Manicheans indeed; but that does not prove that they were 
Cathars, though they probably were. We again hear of them 


pockets just as did a Carthaginian Christian lady of the second century or an 
Alexandrian of the fourth (see Zzturgies, vol. i, by F. E. Brightman. Oxford, 
1896, p. 509, n. 27). 

k 2 


cxlvili THE KEY OF TRUCE 


in 1028 or 1031, when they were condemned at the Council of 
Charroux. In 1049 they are mentioned at the Council of Rheims 
as the new heretics who had arisen in France. Such evidence 
all points to the conclusion that the Albigensian heresy was an old 
and native growth of Languedoc, and that its adherents did not 
join hands with Paulicians or Bogomiles until long after the epoch 
of the Crusades. 

We have, it is true, a statement in Reinerius Saccho, that the two 
Churches of Bulgaria and Dugranicia were the parent congregations 
of the various Cathar Churches of Europe, of which he gives the 
list as follows: the ‘Church of the Albanenses of Sansano, of 
Contorezo, of Bagnolo, of Vicenza, of Florence, of Spoleto, of 
France, of Toulouse, of Cahors, of Albi, of Sclavonia, of the 
Latins at Constantinople, of the Greeks in the same city. But 
this author lived as late as 1254, and by that date, perhaps owing 
to the increased intercourse between east and west brought about 
by the Crusades, the heretics of the Balkans seem to have joined 
hands more or less firmly with those of the south of France and of 
Lombardy. The possibility must also be admitted that the 
Manicheans, who, in the time of Augustine, had teachers in the 
north of Africa so pre-eminent in saintliness of life, in intelligence, 
in critical acumen and literary ability, as from the fragments 
preserved in Augustine we know Faustus to have been, may 
have advanced into Italy and France long before the tenth 
century; making converts wherever they went, and perhaps im- 
parting to the opinions of certain congregations of old believers 
that Manichean tinge which, if any credit is to be given to the 
reports of the persecutors, they in many cases had.  Reinerius, 
the Judas Iscariot of the Albigensian Church, himself testifies that 
the Cathars were divided among themselves into many shades of 
opinion, some being more dualistic or Manichean than others 
(Maitland, p. 429); he also attests that as early as the year 
1223 the opinions and observances of some of them had undergone 
important changes. It is not even safe to assume that the Cathars 
of the Rhine were the same as those of Gascony. 

If we had the eucharistic rituals of the Paulicians, and of the 
Cathars who used the Lyon MS., we should know much more fully 
the relation in which they stood to each other. As it is, we cannot 
even affirm as certain that the users of the Lyon book were Adop- 
tionists at all. They probably were; but it is not an explicitly 
Adoptionist document. And the Consolamen/um, as set out in it, 


THE CATHARS DEFERRED BAPTISM ΟΧΙΙΧ 


unlike the Paulician ritual of election, is a form for conferring on 
the believer the grace or charésma not merely of preaching and of 
the diaconate, but of recovery from sickness as well. It is in fact 
a general form of laying on of hands in order to the reception of 
all graces of the spirit whatever; as such and as the sole earnest 
of immortal life it was extended to women as well as to men. 
And as a rite which, except in the case of those who desired the 
grace of the Holy Spirit in order to preach and serve the brethren, 
was commonly deferred until a time of mortal sickness, it nearly 
resembles the deferred baptism common in the orthodox Church 
of the fourth century, when a believer was often not baptized till 
he lay on his death-bed; or, if earlier, then only in order to be 
ordained a priest or a bishop. That the Cathar Consolamentum, as 
we have it in the MS. of Lyon, was to a great extent the analogue 
of the deferred baptism of the fourth century, is the more probable 
because the document itself shows that the consoled or spiritually 
baptized alone formed the Church proper, and that the credenées 
were simply the catechumens of an earlier age. 

Thus these Cathars were the complete antithesis of the later 
Catholics. They deferred baptism and formal admission into the 
true Church until death impended, the chief exception to this rule 
being the persons who were to perform ecclesiastical functions ; 
these put forward the rite of baptism and formal initiation into the 
true Church to birth. They ended, these began life with baptism. 
But if this view of the Lyon document be correct, then it follows 
that they had either given up baptism with water altogether, as 
some believers already had begun to do in the days of Tertullian 
(see De Baptismo, ch. i); or else they retained it as a rite inferior 
to the baptism with fire and water, as the equivalent only of the 
baptism of John, to be used as the initiatory rite of the eredenfes, or 
catechumens. These, as merely having received it, did not become 
full members of the spiritual Church of Christ, as did those 
members of the Paulician Church who had received the baptism 
with water. 

These considerations all point to the fact that the common 
source, which after all we must surely posit for the Paulician book 
and for the Cathar ritual, must lie far back somewhere about the 
year 200, and shortly after, if not before, the excommunication of 
Theodotus. The common starting-point may have also been in 
Rome. Anyhow, between that common starting-point on the one 
hand, and the ninth and late twelfth centuries on the other, when 


cl THE KEY OF TRUTH 


we get our glimpses of these two primitive survivals, there had 
been time for the two systems, the Paulician and the Cathar, to 
drift widely apart, all the while however retaining those common 
traits in their ritual which oblige us to assume a common source. 

In consequence of the invasion of Tamerlane thousands of 
Armenian refugees fled to the north of the Black Sea, to the 
Crimea, and subsequently deeper into the ancient realm of Poland. 
In Transylvania many communities of them still remain, and they 
still have a handsome Church and episcopal See at Lemberg. 
Those who remain are mostly Armenians of the Gregorian rite, or 
have become Latin Uniats. The orthodox or Gregorian Armenians 
of the Balkan Peninsula also are still sufficiently numerous to have 
their own bishop. Now it is not to be supposed that so many 
orthodox Armenians thus migrated up into the heart of Europe as 
traders, and that the Paulician Armenians, of whom there were settled 
over 200,000 in Thrace five centuries earlier, did not do the same. 
And as the Paulicians of Philippopolis retained their own Church 
as late as the eighteenth century, so it is likely that they carried 
their rites and beliefs into Poland and Bohemia, and even as far as 
the Rhinelands. The notices of Petrus Siculus and Cedrenus prove 
that in the ninth century they had begun on European soil the 
same zealous propaganda which in Asia Minor had drawn upon 
them the bitter hostility of Constantinople. It is generally agreed 
—and all the sources allow it—that the Bogomile Church was 
largely their creation, and if we had monuments we should proba- 
bly see more clearly that this was the case. 

It is therefore a promising field of research to inquire whether 
the Paulicians were not partially responsible for many sects which 
at the Reformation make their appearance and exhibit, some more, 
some less, an affinity to Paulician tenets as set out in the Key. 
This is not the place to embark on such an inquiry, which would 
require a separate work. Perhaps the data no longer exist which 
would enable one to trace the channels of communication. To do 
so would require in any case a vast amount of research; but it 
does seem probable that in at least two of the sects of the age of 
the Reformation we have a survival of the same ancient form of the 
Catholic Church which the pages of the Key reveal to us. These 
two sects are the Anabaptists and the Unitarians, afterwards called 
Socinians from their great teacher Socinus. From the former are 
derived the great Baptist Churches of England and America, and 
also the Mennonites of Germany. The arguments of the sixteenth- 


PAULICIANS. BOGOMILES. BAPTISTS cli 


century Baptists against Paedo-baptism are the same as we have in 
the Aey, and—what we might also expect—an Adoptionist view of 
Christ as a rule went with them in the past; though the modern 
Baptists, in accepting the current doctrine of the Incarnation, have 
both obscured their origin and stultified their distinctive obser- 
vances. From the first ages Adoptionist tenets have as naturally 
and as indissolubly been associated with adult baptism, as has 
infant baptism with the pneumatic Christology, according to which 
Jesus was from his mother’s womb and in his cradle filled with the 
Holy Spirit, a pre-existent Divine being, creator, and controller of 
the universe. 

The early writings of the Unitarian Baptists, however, display 
a clear recognition on their part that they were the remnant of the 
Adoptionist Church of Paul of Samosata and of Photinus. And 
I will conclude this part of my subject, which I hope to be able to 
elaborate more fully in another work, with the following very clear 
and just statement from the pen of a learned Socinian of the seven- 
teenth century, Benedict Wiszowaty. Its date is 1666. I copy 
the text as Dr. Otto Clemen communicates it to the Zezschr. 
Jiir Kirchengeschichte (Bd. xviii, Heft i, p. 140) from a MS. in his 
possession :— 


‘Confessio fidei Christianae secundum Unitarios inter quatuor 
in Transylvania religiones receptas numerata. Unitarii quoque 
pro Christianis habendi; credunt enim... vera esse quae deus, 
per Christum Dominum revelavit, voluntque secundum eandem 
revelationem vivere, et salutem per Christum Dominum expectare 
. «. + coeperunt vero (scil. Unitarii) Albae Iuliae, tunc Carolinae, in 
Transylvania appellationem Unitariorum assumere ad differentiam 
eorum quibus Trinitatis nomen placet. Unitarii enim S. Scriptu- 
rae symboli apostolici primaevaeque ecclesiae vestigiis insistentes 
noluerunt vel ab aliquo homine denominare (? -ri), vel in Deo 
divisionem quaerere; sed unum, ut essentia, ita persona deum 
summum, creatorem coeli et terrae, qui est pater, unicum tam 
persona quam natura; Dominum Iesum Christum in uno Spiritu 
Sancto profiteri. Unde etiam voluerunt in Polonia Christiani ad 
distinctionem ab aliis Christianis, qui a baptismo Chrescianin 
dicuntur appellare (? -ri). Hodie in diversis locis diversas habent 
denominationes. Dicuntur etiam in Belgio Collegiantes ob unitatem 
spiritualis quam intendunt unionis; appellati sunt a baptismo 
Anabaptistae, quod multi eorum sacri baptismatis ritu non infantes, 
sed adultos fidei capaces voluerunt initiari, eosque non aspergendo, 


clii THE KEY OF TRUTH 


perfundendo, sed secundum divinum mandatum primitivaeque 
ecclesiae praxim ad sepulturae typum exprimendum mergendo. 
Nuncupati sunt etiam Pingoviniani, Rakoviani a praecipuis commo- 
rationis suae locis. Samosateniani a Paulo Samosateno, episcopo 
circa annum Christi 260 Antiocheno; Photiniani a Photino epi- 
scopo circa annum Christi 350 Sermiensi; Sociniani a Laelio et 
Fausto, ex principis Italici familia oriundo, Socinis ; quoniam idem 
in defendendo unitatis in divinitate dogmate inter alios multum 
operae praestiterunt. Arianorum quoque titulo traducuntur .. .’ 


The Key gives us little information as to the fasts and feasts kept 
by the Adoptionist Church of Armenia. A reference in the margin 
to the forty days of holiness implies that they kept a quadragesimal 
fast; and Isaac Catholicos shows that they kept it, not before 
Easter, but after the Feast of the Baptism. We also know from 
a notice preserved in Ananias of Shirak’ that the Paulianiz, who 
were the same people at an earlier date, were Quartodecumans, and 
kept Easter in the primitive manner at the Jewish date. John of 
Otzun’s language perhaps implies that the old believers in Armenia 
during the s.venth century were Quartodecumans’, as we should 
expect them to be. Perhaps we may also conclude from the report 
of the Russian inquisition in 1837, already referred to, that they 
kept the Feast of the Wardawarh or Transfiguration; but the 
reference may equally lie to the Feast of the Orthodox Armenians. 
They are accused by their Armenian opponents of setting at naught 
all the feasts and fasts of the Church, especially Sunday. And this 
is probably true, since most of the orthodox feasts and fasts were 
invented later than the third century, when the Adoptionists had 
already been excluded from the main stream of Catholic develop- 
ment. They kept the Festival of a Birth of Christ, but identified it 
with the baptism. In the great Church the Festival of Christmas 
was not instituted till nearly the close of the fourth century; and 


* Ananias (early seventh century), of. Arm. Petersburg, 1877, pp. 22 and 23, 
and in Byzant. Zeitschr. 1897: ‘ But the Pauliani also keep the feast of the 
Pascha on the same day (as the Jews), and whatever be the day of the full 
moon, they call it Awriaké, as the Jews call it Sabbath, even though it be not 
a Sabbath.’ So much is clear, that they kept it with the Jews. For the rest 
Ananias’ account is barely intelligible. 

* Oratio Synod. ch. 3: ‘Ipsi quoque Apostoli suis temporibus una cum 
Iudaeis festum sanctae Paschae diem celebrarunt. Si gués tamen nostrum 
audeat cum Iudaets celebrare, et ante vernale aequinoctium, et ante primi 
Sabbati diem solvere ieiunium, anathematis poena fit continuo obnoxius.’ In 


the context he is refuting the plea of the old believers that they kept to the 
example of Christ and his apostles. 


SYMBOL OF THE FISH EXPLAINED cliii 


it was even then some time before it was distinguished from the 
earlier Feast of the Baptism. The reason is obvious. According 
to the Adoptionist Christology, which in many countries preceded 
the pneumatic doctrine, the baptism was the spiritual birth of Christ. 
It was then that the Holy Spirit, as Archelaus says, begat him the 
Son of God. ‘This day have I begotten thee,’ was the utterance 
of the heavenly voice heard in Jordan, according to the earlier form 
of the text in Luke iii. 22, preserved in Justin Martyr, in Clemens 
Alexandrinus, in Codex D, and in the old Latin Version. When 
the Feast of the earthly birth from the Virgin was instituted late in 
the fourth century, this old form of text was felt to be too favourable 
to the Adoptionists, already become a heretical sect ; and accordingly 
it was changed? into what we read in our English Version: ‘ In thee 
am I well pleased.’ 

The symbolic representation of Jesus Christ as a fish, common 
in the earliest Christian art, argues an Adoptionist faith on the part 
of those who invented and used it. ‘Sed nos pisciculi secundum 
ἰχθύν nostrum Iesum Christum in aqua nascimur,’ says Tertullian 
(De Bapt. ch. 1). ‘But we, little fishes after the example of our 
ἰχθύς Jesus Christ, are born in water.’ And a little further on, 
ch. 3, he remarks: ‘ Water was the first to produce that which had 
life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to 
give life” And John of Oizun, in the same discourse to which we 
have so often referred, ch. iv, says; ‘Lavacri unctio spiritualis nos 
regeneratione adoptat: quae autem post baptismum est, unctio in 
nos adoptionis Dei gratiam advocat. Praeterea altare nos alit, 
haud vero gignit: lavacrum gignit, non alit.’ And even the 
grecizing Armenians never gave up the baptism as the birthday of 
Jesus Christ. It was kept on Jan. 6; and the lection for the day 
was not the gospel of the Nativity, but of the Baptism. John of 
Otzun accordingly writes thus: ‘Verum quod ego dico, id antiqua 
erat consuetudo iam ab antiquis temporibus originem ducens, 
atque ad nos usque perveniens. Eo namque die super aquas 
decantando Psalmum xxviii praemissa antiphona, Vox Domini 
super aguas, atque Matthaei de baptismo Evangelium legendo, 
aquam benedicebant, oleo in eam infuso.’ It was the rivers and 
running streams, and not water in fonts, that were so blest, for John 


1 Or more probably the text originally stood as it survives in the Ebionite 
Gospel quoted by Epiphanius : ‘ Thon art my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased. This day have I begotten thee.’ Subsequently the dangerous words 
were merely dropped out. 


cliv THE KEY OF DTRUGEH 


adds that the oppressors (the Mohammedans) tried to prevent the 
practice, probably from a fear that it bewitched the rivers and made 
them unwholesome. That this benediction of the waters was 
as old as the second century, may be inferred from Tertullian, 
De Baptismo, c. iv. On the same day was commemorated the 
manifestation of Jesus as the Christ through the descent of the 
Spirit as a dove upon him, according to the idea conveyed in 
John i. 31-33. ν 

There was in Armenia quite a literature of apology for the 
keeping of the Birth and Baptism on the same day. But the writers 
as a tule either had forgotten or ignored the real significance of 
the union of the two feasts. Yet some of them give us interesting 
information, such as we do not obtain from Greek writers. Thus 
Ananias of Shirak?, in his homily on the Birth of Christ, declares 
that the Feast of the Birth as separate from the Baptism was first 
invented by the followers of Cerinthus the heretic. Collections 
were made of Zestiémonza from the Fathers in defence of the 
Armenian custom; and in the Bodl. MS. Arm. Marsh. 467, 
saecl. xvii, fol. 338 A, there is preserved such a collection, of 
which I append the most interesting. They bear this title: 
‘Testimonies relating to the Birth of Christ and his Baptism. 
That it is right to feast them on one day on Jan. 6. They are as 
follows :— 


‘From Clemens, in the apostolically determined canons: The 
apostles of the Lord fixed the day of the Lord’s birth on Jan. 
the sixth’ 

‘From Macarius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Our Fathers were 
minded to perform? the mystery of Baptism at three feasts, at 
Easter, at Pentecost, and at the Birth which with the Baptism we 
feast on one and the same day.’ 

‘From 3. Patriarch of Jerusalem. Canons and rules of the 
Church. For eight days shall old people and young fast, including 
the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. But on whatever day it shall fall 
they shall celebrate the day of the Birth and Baptism of the Lord. 
For these are divine and salutary.’ 

This fast of eight days before the Baptism survives in the 
Armenian * Church as the seven days’ Fast of the Birth. 


1 For a translation of this tract see the Exfositor for Nov. 1896. 

* Reading arhnel for arhavel. 3 The name in the rubric is left blank. 

* In the homilies of Ephrem (Old Armenian version) the fast called the arhad- 
javor, or ‘ preliminary,’ is explained as ‘ the fast which precedes the Lord’s fast,’ 


TESTIMONIA ABOUT THE BAPTISM clv 


‘From Nectarius, Patriarch of Rome. The rules of the orthodoxy 
of the Church, fixed by the Apostles, ordain that the clergy and 
penitents shall fast during forty days, and for eight days entire the 
congregation (or the entire congregation), including the Sabbath and 
the first day of the week. And the Feast of the Epiphany [follows], 
I mean of the Birth and of the Baptism. For these are divine and 
salutary ; on whatsoever day it shall fall they shall celebrate it.’ 


This extract is mutilated. It imports that the Feast of the Birth 
and Baptism was to be kept on the sixth of January, no matter what 
day of the week it fell upon. The fast of eight days must be the 
fast preliminary to the Baptism. Did that of forty days follow the 
Baptism, or was it the Easter fast? If the latter, why connect it 
with the Baptism? The prescription to fast on Saturday and Sunday 
is the same as in the last extract. Nectarius, the predecessor of 
Chrysostom, seems rather late for such prescriptions, but there was 
no early Pope of the name. 

‘From Gregory Theologus. The bishop shall fix for his Church, 
on the sixth of January, the day of the Birth of the Lord and of his 
Baptism, and on the fourteenth of February his coming into the 
Temple.’ 

‘From Hippolytus, Bishop. In the ninth month the Lord was 
born, and in the thirtieth year he was baptized, on the same day ; 
according to Luke, who says, “And Jesus was thirty years of age.” ’ 

‘And, after a few words, he speaks of the Baptism. For it was 
unlikely that he should be born on one day, and be baptized on 
another, as that would have engendered a want of faith, and they 
would say that it was one person that was born, and another that 
was baptized. For they confessed two natures and two sons. And 
consequently, as many as were disobedient have divided the two 
Feasts. But the Church of the Faithful celebrates on one day the 
Feast of the Birth and of the Baptism.’ 


Hippolytus, supposing the above to be really his, overlooks the 
primitive reason for conjoining the two feasts, namely that the 
baptism was the true birth of Christ. The idea that Jesus was 


or which ‘ heralds the fast of the king.’ It is not clear, however, that with Ephrem 
the fast of forty days immediately followed the Feast of the Baptism, and did 
not come later as a fast preliminary to Easter. Consequently the ‘ preliminary’ 
fast cannot be identified with the ‘eight days’ of this excerpt. Zenob (//zst. 
of Taron, p. 23, c. 800) explains the arhadjavor as the ‘ first fast’ imposed by 
St. Gregory for five (‘ fifty’ according to two MSS.) days on Trdat before 
baptism. Some explained it as the fast of St. Sergius of Cappadocia, 2gvotwm 
per tgnotius. 


clvi THE KEY OF -TRUDH 


born and baptized on the same day of the month, the sixth of 
January, was a device for explaining the custom, universal in the 
early Church, of conjoining the two feasts. Such an explanation 
was urgently needed, in order to counteract the Adoptionist view 
that Jesus was not filled with the Godhead, but was a mere man, 
until the Spirit begat him as the Christ and only Son at the baptism. 

Who were the disobedient ones who divided the two feasts? 
On this point Paul of Taron (d. 1125), from whom I give some 
extracts in my eighth appendix, has some curious information 
which fits in with this extract of Hippolytus, and explains the 
statement of Ananias of Shirak (c. 600-650) that the disciples of 
Cerinthus invented the Feast of the Birth on December 25. ‘Arte- 
mon,’ says Paul (p. 222, Against Theopistus), ‘said this: “The 
Holy Spirit has revealed to me the day of the Birth of Christ (ize: 
Jesus).”’ And the revelation was this: ‘Jesus was twelve days 
short of thirty years old when he was baptized. Zachariah went 
away to his house on Tisri the tenth. From that day Artemon 
reckoned the six months of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, and on this 
foundation he calculated the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin to 
be on March 25. From this last day he reckoned nine months 
and five days for the Virgin’s pregnancy; and accordingly they 
(i.e. the Artemonites) kept on Dec. 25 the birth, not, however, of 
the Divine Being, but only of the mere man. Then on Jan. 6 
they kept the Feast of the Baptism, and divided one feast into 
three (? two).’ 

The same account is given in the Bodleian MS. from which we 
translate these excerpts. It is quite possible that Artemon, who is 
in this account recognized as an Adoptionist, may have invented the 
feast of the human Birth of Jesus by way of safeguarding and 
preserving in its true significance the older Feast of the Baptism, 
which in his day the pneumatic Christologists were already bent 
upon abolishing, as being a stumbling-block in the way of their 
doctrine. Paul’s excerpts are very precise, and have all the 
appearance of being authentic. 


‘From Severian, Bishop. From the commentary on Luke: 

‘The ancients fasted on two days in the week, and omitted (11. 
passed by) on those days currently the commemoration of the 
saints. But they feasted, on whatever day it befel, alone the 
Feast of the Divine Voice! and of the Divine Son. For he is God, 


— 
- wo urdu jin sl in MS. must be a corruption of wduaduyylnyl, which 


I render. 


BAPTISM THE BIRTH OF CHRIST clvii 


and releaseth all. I mean that they kept the Feast of the Birth and 
of the Baptism on one day.’ 


The above means that the Baptism was the chief feast, so 
important as to supersede a fast-day, supposing it fell on one. 


‘From the letter of Meliton to the Bishop Eutr’: 

‘We feast, according to the annunciation of the angel, in the 
ninth month the Birth; on the eighth day the Circumcision; at 
thirty years old the Baptism. And we honour as follows: the 
Birth and the Baptism shall be feasted on one and the same day.’ 


The above passage exhibits the same chronological schematism, 
devised for the same reason, as we saw in the extract from 
Hippolytus. And it again occurs in the next excerpt. I doubt if 
the excerpt is really from Melito of Sardis. 


‘From Cyprian, Bishop. Christ in the flesh, having completed 
his thirtieth year, is baptized on the same day on which he was born 
of the Virgin Mary.’ 

‘From Marutha, Bishop of Nphrkert (Martyropolis or Jus- 
tinianopolis). And this I say, not because the Feast of the Birth 
is one, and that of the Baptism another, but on one and the same 
day we must feast them both. However the things are different 
which occurred on this day.’ 


Here the last sentence glances at the Adoptionists, by whom 
Marutha must have found himself surrounded at Nphrkert. They 
appealed to the joint celebration of Birth and Baptism in behalf of 
their dogmatic views. 


‘From the catechism (1. inquiries-by-question) of the Syrian 
Doctors: 

‘Sahak answered Afrém his teacher: ‘So then, as it was 
ordained many a time that on the sixth of January, on the last* 
of Qaniin, the Son of God was born of the Virgin; why, if so, do 
the Churches feast December 25, which is the first of Qandén?” 

‘The teacher said: “ The Roman world does so from idolatry, 
because of the worship of the Sun. And [it feasts] on the 25th of 
December, which is the first of Qandén; when the day made a 
beginning out of the darkness (or the night), they feasted the Sun 
with great joy, and declared that day to be the nuptials of the Sun. 
However, when the Son of God was born of the Virgin, they 


1 The meaning of the word or name Zw¢r I cannot conjecture. 
2 We should read the twelfth. 


clviii THE KEY OF GRUDE 


celebrated the same feast, although they had turned from their idols 
to God. And when their bishops (or primates) saw this, they 
proceeded to take the Feast of the Birth of Christ, which was on the 
sixth of January, and placed it then (viz. on Dec. 25). And they 
abrogated the Feast of the Sun, because it (the Sun) was nothing, 
as we said before. But the Birth of Christ is truly on the sixth of 
January, which is the last of Qanzn; as the holy apostles wrote in 
their book of canons in the descent of the Spirit. This the 
blessed Luke learned and wrote in his Gospel: Jesus was thirty 
years of age, beginning the day on which he was baptized. For 
there is a great mystery in the celebration of the birth and the 
baptism on the same day. For as the two natures, to wit, of God 
and man, were united without confusion, so also the two feasts were 
united in one, so as to become the faith of the holy Church.’ 


The above is curiously candid as to the origin of the custom of 
keeping Christmas on December 25. But the Roman bishops had 
another reason, namely to get rid of what had an Adoptionist 
significance. For as long as the Birth and Baptism were cele- 
brated on one day, the Adoptionists could appeal to the joint feast 
in support of their views. The Syrian Doctors had also heard of 
Hippolytus’ explanation, viz. that Jesus was baptized on his thirtieth 
birthday. 

The same MS. has a collection of testimonia in defence of the 
practice of eating the Paschal lamb immediately before the 
Eucharist. This was clearly the example which the Paulicians set 
before themselves when they on principle first ate their full of meats 
and then proceeded to celebrate the Eucharist. I select two only. 
‘From Marutha, Bishop of Nphrkert: As in the holy Pascha. 
For first he ate the lamb of the shadow’, and then began to eat 
(114. taste) the spiritual Pascha (111. Zatik).’ From the same, after 
a few words: ‘And after partaking of the shadow lamb’, then he 
blessed the bread and gave it to them; as also Paul testifies, that 
after the meal Jesus took the bread, blessed and gave it them.’ 

As early as John of Otzun the Eucharist was separated from the 
Agapé by an interval. The above testimoniur, however, belongs 
to an age when they were still conjoined. In this respect the 
Paulicians kept up the practice of the earliest Armenian Church. 

Some further information with regard to the feasts of the old 
believers of Armenia, and of the orthodox Church of that land so 
far as it was still in a transitional stage, is obtainable from a source 


1 i.e. the lamb emblematic of himself. 


ORIGIN OF MODERN CHRISTMAS clix 


we have already used. This is Isaac Catholicos, who in his 
Invectiva in Armenios, c. ii, denies that the Armenians kept the 
Feast of the Annunciation (τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ) at all’. On the con- 
trary, he says, they fasted on that day, and denied that the Gospel 
testifies to the Annunciation having taken place in March. ‘That 
is why,’ so they said, ‘we do not feast it’ Isaac, on the other 
hand, can adduce no earlier authority for keeping the feast on 
March 25th than Eusebius Pamphili, Athanasius, and Chrysostom. 
‘The Armenians,’ he complains, ‘keep this feast neither in March 
nor in any other month, nor do they celebrate it in accordance 
with the Gospel six months after the conception of Elizabeth ; for 
they really reject the truth of the Annunciation along with the Birth 
and Incarnation of Christ®.’ 

Isaac continues in his ch. iii as follows: ‘Then again from the 
Annunciation, they ought to count nine months, and then feast 
the Birth of Christ. But as it is, though they commemorate the 
conception of Elizabeth, yet they do not keep six months after it 
the Feast of the Annunciation ; nor again, nine months after that, do 
they keep the festival (πανηγυριζόντων) of Christ’s birth. . . . On the 
contrary, they are downcast in countenance and in tribulation on 
the very day of this holy and brilliant feast, just like the Jews. 
Then in the twinkling of an eye, on the fifth evening of the month 
of January, they—I won’t say feast, not a bit of it—but in 
a fantastic and dim show commemorate* the Annunciation and 
the Birth and the Baptism all at once by way of deceiving the 
hearers (i.e. laity). Thus they are clearly convicted of pro- 
claiming each festival in mere seeming and fantasy, instead of 
proclaiming that Christ really became flesh, Therefore they are 
manifestly detected as gainsayers of the Gospel and as hostile to 
the incarnation of God.’ 


The above is interesting for the light it throws on the history 
of the religion. Among the Adoptionists of Armenia—and in 
this context we may include the semi-grecized orthodox body, 


1 Οὗτοι τὴν τοιαύτην φαιδρὰν καὶ φρικτὴν ἑορτήν, καὶ πρώτην τοῦ κόσμου 
σωτηρίαν, καὶ τῆς θεοτόκου χαρὰν ἀρνοῦνται μᾶλλον ὥσπερ ᾿Ἰουδαῖοι, καθάπερ 
πένθος αὐτὴν δεχόμενοι, οὐδαμῶς οὐδ᾽ ὅλως αὐτὴν ἑορτάζουσιν ἢ μνημονεύουσι. 

2 The earliest Armenian Church certainly rejected the Incarnation in the 
current sense of the term, and the only Birth of Christ they celebrated was his 
spiritual birth in the Jordan, his birth as the C#rzs¢. His natural or human 
birth as Jesus they did not care to feast, still less the Annunciation. That this 
was so appears from the canons of St. Sahak, which are quoted below. 

3 Φανταστικῶς καὶ ἀμυδρῶς μνημονεύοντες. 


clx HE ΚΝ ΘΕ in ier 


as well as the Paulicians—the birth of John the Baptist is 
already commemorated before there is any feasting of the birth 
of Jesus from the Virgin. Truly, as we go back in the history 
of the religion, the figure of the Baptist looms larger on the 
Christian horizon. The human birth of Jesus and the announce- 
ment of it did not interest the Armenians till they began to believe 
that it was a pre-existent divine being, the Christ, the Word, the 
Son of God that was so born, and not a mere man’. 

In the canons of Sahak accordingly we find (p. 110) the Feast 
of St. John the Baptist heads the list of feasts kept in a wang or 
rest-house: ‘St. Gregory the Apostle and Confessor of Christ and 
father of the renewal of the whole land of Armenia, apfoznted it 
jirst of all*’ ‘The same St. Gregory,’ continues Sahak, ‘appointed 
Sabbaths, and fasts, and abstinences in fulfilment of vows.’ 

In Sahak’s list of feasts, which represents the orthodox Armenian 
Church as early perhaps as 425, there is no hint of the Annunciation 
and Birth (as opposed to Baptism) of Jesus Christ. The feasts 
which follow that of John the Baptist are the following :— 


(1) Feast of All Martyrs, ‘which we call matroung,’ i.e. 
shrines®. 

(2) Wardawarh, i.e. ‘ Splendour-of-Roses or Rose-resplendent.’ 
This was an old Pagan feast of Anahit. On it, says Sahak, the 
congregations and married priests presented the firstfruits and 
best of the corn crop bushel by bushel. It was afterwards identi- 
fied with the Feast of the Transfiguration, 

(3) The Feast of the Holy Manifestation, and z/s forty days, and 
the coming forward (ὑπαπαντή) of the Lord, and the close (or 
ending) of the preliminary (arhadjavor) fast. The ‘ coming forward’ 
was the event narrated in Luke ii. 27 or iv. 14; the ‘ manifestation,’ 
that of the Holy Spirit in the Jordan. It was on Jan. 6, or rather 
began at six p.m. on Jan. 5, the day on which the pre-baptismal fast 


1 Cp. Lren. ad Mat. i. 18 (p. 204): ‘Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus : 
Jesu uero generatio sic erat, sed praeuidens Spiritus Sancti deprauatores et prae- 
muniens contra fraudulentiam eorum per Mt. ait: Christ? autem gener. sic erat.’ 
In view of the fact that /esu Christz is the best-witnessed reading, Irenaeus has 
the air of protesting too much, and arouses a suspicion that Zesw alone stood in 
the oldest codices he knew of. 

3 This feast, adds Sahak, is to be kept in a wang (where the clergy were 
celibate) ‘ because it was fixt (ov established) by a Nazarene fast, and all other 
vows whatever are to be kept (or fulfilled) in a wang.’ 

ὁ On this day the people of each locality visited the shrine of its own 
martyr-saint and celebrated in it an Eucharist, so Sahak assures us. 


RELATION OF THE BAPTISM TO EASTER  clxi 


ended. The forty days’ fast began, I believe, in the Paulician 
Church, on the next day, January 6, probably at six p.m. 

(4) The feast of the middle [of the] forty days of Zatik ; the day 
of Lazarus, of the great fifth of the week of Zatik, on which our 
quickener (or Vivifier) bequeathed to his disciples the mystery (or 
sacrament) of the new covenant. 

(5) The second day of the week of Zatik, a day of offerings and 
of thanksgiving’. 

(6) The Feast of the Assumption of the Lord into heaven. 

(7) The last day of the month Hrodifz (originally a Pagan 
feast). 


These feasts, says Sahak, are to be held and the firstfruits eaten 
in a wang or in consecrated places, not only by the celibate, but 
by the married clergy and strangers; and they shall not lodge [in 
order to hold them] in hamlets, but only in the wang; the only 
exception being in favour of places where there may be no wang. 

The reference to Sabbaths as ordained by St. Gregory can 
hardly imply that the earliest Armenian Church kept the Sabbath. 
Probably the reference is to the hebdomadart, td est qui faciunt 
seplimanas, of the Peregrinatio of St. Silvia; for the Armenian 
word shabath may mean ‘a week’ as well as a ‘Saturday,’ and 
the context implies that some form of fasting is to be understood. 
Nor can we infer anything from the statement of Gregory of Narek 
(see p. 126) that the Paulicians of Thonrak reckoned the Lord’s 
Day to be just like any other day. That the earliest Christians 
kept the Sabbath may indeed be inferred from the persistence in 
the vernacular tongues of the races which first adopted the religion 
of the word Sadéath, namely in the Romance tongues, in Greek, 
in Armenian, Syrian, and Georgian. And the Armenians them- 
selves have always spoken of Sunday simply as the first day of the 
week. The Greek word κυριακή hardly occurs before John of 
Otzun. It is also certain from the works of Philo and Josephus 
that to most Gentile proselytes the Sabbath observance was the 
most attractive feature in Judaism. In spite of such considerations, 
however, one hesitates to interpret the words of Gregory of Narek 
in the sense that the Paulicians observed the Sabbath and not the 
Sunday; not, however, because such a thing is in itself unlikely, 


1 Sahak’s text is obscure. It literally means: ‘ The feast of the second day 
of week of Zatik with offerings and with gifts of gratitude of the conventional 
Zatik’ The word rendered conventional may represent the adj. θετὸς or θέσις. 
The reference seems to be to the later date fixed for Easter. 


] 


clxii THE KEY OF RUSE 


for they were probably the remnant of an old Judaeo-Christian 
Church, which had spread up through Edessa into Siuniq and 
Albania. The real ground for distrusting Gregory on this point, 
as on others, lies in his virulence. 

The early Armenian Christians, as is clear from the above 
canons of Sahak, spoke of rest-houses, synagogues, of proseuchae, 
and of shrines (mafroung), but hardly at all of churches; and 
individuals, especially if they were elders, were prone ‘from 
ignorance,’ as Sahak puts it, to celebrate the Agapé and Eucharist 
in their own houses, also to consecrate the oil of chrism, as well as 
collect in them the firstfruits of the offerings. Sahak insists that 
these rites must be performed in church, or in a wang ; and the first- 
fruits are to be taken to the house of the head-priest (=summus 
sacerdos), while the chief bishop alone shall hallow the chrism. 

We have already surmised that, when the significance of the 
baptism of Jesus was lost sight of in the Church, the Quadragesimal 
fast ceased to be associated with it, and was made preliminary to 
Easter. It is therefore probable that the latter feast gained in 
importance as the baptism lost. The Hey attaches vast significance to 
the birth through baptism of the Christ and Son of God. Of Easter 
and of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ we have in it barely 
any hint. In the two baptismal creeds these great incidents are 
not mentioned, and they would seem to have been chiefly valued 
as the preliminary to the Christ’s enthronement by the Father's 
side as our one Intercessor. We know that the Pauliani continued 
to keep the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan with the Jews. 
Is it possible that the Adoptionists did not, so clearly as their 
rivals, see in the suffering and dying Jesus Christ a victim for the 
propitiation of human sins? May not the latter conception have 
gained ground as the pondus baptism? came to be felt more lightly? 
Certainly it was a conception which in a measure conflicted with 
Adoptionist baptism, since this solemn rite, deferred until the age 
of full manhood, was viewed as the final washing away of sins, as 
a new birth, ushering the saints into the kingdom of God’. We 
must indeed be careful, where the ‘ey is silent, and where we 
therefore depend on the testimony of enemies. But the evidence 
of Paul of Taron on this point has certainly an air of verisimili- 
tude; and he hints plainly that the Thonraki denied the sacrifice of 


1 Therefore the earliest Church, in order to liberate the dead, offered no sacri- 
fices, but vicariously baptized the living in their behalf; and this practice 
survived in the Marcionite Church. 


THE PAULICIAN EUCHARIST clxili 


Christ as an atonement for human sin. Aristaces equally testifies 
that they rejected the great and terrible mystery of the sacrifice of 
Christ; and in the same spirit they refused to honour the cross. 
It would appear that, like the primitive believers, for whom the 
Didaché was written, they interpreted their sacrament less as a sacri- 
fice offered for the sins of men than as a meal symbolic of the 
unity of all the faithful ; as an indication that the Church is the one 
indivisible body of Christ, of which each believer is a limb. This 
explains why, in the account of the Eucharist given both at the 
end of the Key (p. 123) and in the report of the Inquisition of 
Arkhwéli (p. xlix), so much importance is attached to its being 
a single or one unleavened loaf that is laid on the table’. This one 
loaf was the symbol of the union of all believers. The same con- 
ception of the Eucharist inspired their abhorrence of altars of stone 
and their determination to eat it in an ordinary room, and off an 
ordinary table of wood. Having such a significance for them, it 
was naturally not dissociated—as it was in the Great Church— 
from the Agapé or common meal of Christian love, of which it was 
the solemn and fitting conclusion. Their Agapé moreover—though 
this point cannot be so clearly made out—seems to have been 
a continuance of the old Paschal meal of the Jews, and in the 
meats consumed at it the flesh of pigeons? and of sheep was 
preferred in the earliest Armenian Church. Yet it was not like the 
Jewish Pascha held but once a year. More probably, as their 
enemies intimate, every common meal had among the Paulicians 
a sacred character. 

With their peculiar view of the Eucharist, which we also find in 
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and with their belief in the 
efficacy of simple baptism coupled with the intercession of Jesus 


1 1 Cor. x.17: εἷς ἄρτος, ἐν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν. 

2 Thus in the Armenian canons of Basil cited in the Bodleian MS. already 
referred to we read the following prescriptions :— 

‘From animals caught in the chase let no one dare to sacrifice (97 make) 
a matal, but only doves and other birds.’ 

From the same : ‘A strangled animal killed by violence let no one dare to 
sacrifice as a matal.’ 

From the same: ‘The animal which one consecrates to the Lord, the same 
let him offer. But if it fall unexpectedly into a snare, let him salt it and dis- 
tribute it to the poor.’ 

Such prescriptions have a Jewish and early-Christian ring. In considering 
whether the Paulicians acted on them, we must not suppose that, because they 
rejected the idea of sin-offerings for the dead, they did not regard the flesh 
eaten in their love-feast as an offering or sacrifice to God. 

2 


clxiv THE KEY OF TRU GE 


Christ to take away sin, there cohered among the Armenian 
Paulicians a repudiation of the ma/a/‘ of their countrymen, in the 
sense of an animal sacrifice offered in expiation of the sins of 
the dead. And with this repudiation was connected in turn their 
rejection of the belief in a Purgatory. Their countrymen, as we 
see from the accounts of Aristaces and of Paul of Taron, particu- 
larly resented this double denial. The mata] was, we read, 
Gregory the Illuminator’s substitute for the ancient sacrificial 
system of pagan Armenia, and as such was condemned with much 
asperity by the Greeks. 1 was a love-feast upon meats, and the 
animals eaten at it were regarded as victims offered in expiation of 
the sins of the dead. The Paulicians evidently had the common 
meal of flesh preliminary to the sacred rite of the Eucharist, but 
denied to the animals killed and eaten the expiatory character 
attributed to therm by their orthodox compatriots. In this respect 
the Paulicians appear in the guise rather of reformers than of old 
believers. They were, in fact, Adoptionist Christians first and 
Armenians afterwards. They were never the Church of a separate 
race and country, as was the orthodox Armenian Church; and 
this the author of Zhe Key of Truth intimates at once by the 
objective manner in which he speaks of ‘the Armenians,’ when he 
condemns them along with Latins and Greeks; and by the 
vehemence with which he insists on it that he and his fellow- 
believers alone constituted the genuine Apostolic Church. 

The sturdy refusal of the Paulicians to give any other meaning 
to the word ‘Church’ than that of the invisible union in one body 
of the faithful connects them with the earliest Christians and with 
the Albigeois; and it also helps us to understand the mystical use 
of the term by the early Gnostics who made an aeon out of the 
ecclesia. The earlier Armenian fathers, as we might expect, 
resembled the Paulicians in their reluctance to identify the Church 
with any building of wood and stone. ‘The precept of God, 
wrote St. Sahak in his canons (c. 425), ‘sets forth unto us no 
Church merely built of stones and logs, but the races of mankind 
built by faith on the rock of foundation. Wherefore the true faith 
is the Church, which assembles and builds us into one accord of 
knowledge of the Son of God. For the giver of life himself taught 
us, saying: “ Thou art the rock, and on this rock will I build my 
Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee.” 
What then shall we understand by his calling Peter the rock? 


1 For the meaning of this word see note on p. 134. 


THE CHURCH AS REUNION clxv 


Surely not that he was one of the stones? God forbid! But he 
meant the rational man, head of the apostolic order ; and because 
with inflexible faith he avowed Christ to be the Son of God, there- 
fore he received blessedness and was named the rock. So then 
also those that are built upon him are not lifeless stones, but men 
who share the same faith,’ 

The Key of Truth is in strict accord with the above. The faith 
demanded (p. 97) of the candidate for baptism is the faith of Peter, 
and in the ordinal the elect one receives the ritual name of Peter in 
recognition of his holding the faith. In the Albigeois ritual of 
Consolamentum, a document so primitive that it has in itself the 
germ of the Paulician Baptismal Service and ordinal not yet 
differentiated one from the other, the ritual use of the name Peter 
has the same significance. 

And just as in the Key (p. 93) this spiritual Church is compared 
to the Ark of Noe, so St. Sahak declares that ‘the Church, to wit 
the holy and spotless faith, is a ship of which the captain is the 
incarnate Word of God, and the apostles and prophets and doctors 
are the mariners.’ 

‘Dumb and lifeless created things,’ says St. Sahak in the same 
context, ‘cannot manifest the mystery of the worship of God, but 
only the rational (λογική) Church can do so.’ And just below, in 
an instructive passage, he writes thus: ‘In thus exhibiting the 
indivisible unity of the Church, we have made clear what is 
a Church. Not however that we teach you to despise the spots 
honoured by buildings, which are called meeting-houses (συναγωγαί)". 
For in them are gathered priests and clergy and worshippers of 
God to make their prayers and petitions, wherefore ¢hey are also called 
praying-places (=mpocevxat) and sanctuaries (ΞΞ σεμνεῖα). And there 
is fixed in them the Lord’s table? on which we offer the bread and 
wine as a iype of the life-giving body and blood of Christ, which is 
ever freely (Jif. without payment) distributed among us for the 
expiation and remission of sin. And in them also is erected a font 
of baptism .... In these we assemble daily and listen to Psalms 
sung and to the precepts of the commands of God. And because 
we ever assemble there, and because they are a harbour of refuge 
to us, who celebrate all the said rites in them, it has become 


1 Arm. selan = τράπεζα. The only Armenian equivalents of ‘altar’ had 
a Pagan ring, and were on the whole eschewed in connexion with Christian 
worship. 

2 With the term ‘ Jolowrdanotz’ = συναγωγή, Sahak elsewhere couples 
matroung = shrines. 


clxvi' THE KEY OF ΕΗ 


a custom to call them Church, identifying them in name but not in 
actual reality’’ In the sequel he declares that the term ‘church’ 
in this narrower and conventional sense is equally applicable to the 
wang, or rest-houses and hospitals, already at that time estab- 
lished in Armenia and managed by celibate priests. The word 
afterwards came to signify a monastery; but Sahak ascribes their 
foundation in Armenia to Gregory the Illuminator; and in the Acés 
of Archelaus (c. 275-300) we read that one Marcellus had erected 
similar hospices or rest-houses along the high road from the 
Persian frontier, and Mani’s emissary Turbo was at first denied 
access to them by those who presided over them” because he had 
not the /essera hospitalitatis. Such refuges for the sick and the 
hungry were founded all over Armenia in the last half of the fourth 
century by Nerses Catholicos ; and the Arsacide King Pap’s objec- 
tion to them seems to have lain less against the institution itself 
than against the celibacy imposed by Nerses on the clergy who 
presided over them. When Sahak proceeds to condemn those 
who took elders into their houses to celebrate the Agapé and 
Eucharist, on the pretence that their houses were wang, or shelter- 
houses, he seems to glance at the Paulician custom of celebrating 
the Eucharist in a private house. 
The primitive customs and uses recorded or condemned by 
St. Sahak evidently survived among the Paulicians. For the Greek 
-source Scor., in § xi, says that they called their conventicles by the 
name of proseuchae*; and John of Otzun (c. 700), Gregory Magistros 
(c. 1050), and Paul of Taron (c. 1170), dilate on their hostility to 
churches, and fixed altars, and fonts of stone. Nerses of Lambron 
(c. 1170) in fifty passages reveals that there was the same feeling 
among the Armenians of the Western Taurus; though he does not 
qualify as Paulicians or as Thonraki those who entertained such 
prejudices, any more than does his contemporary, Isaac Catholicos. 
Nerses of Lambron thus records the ‘irregularities’ of the Armen- 
ians of his age: ‘ We do not,’ they argued, ‘enter the Church to 
pray, because our ancestors did not.’ ‘ What ancestors ?’ retorts 
Nerses. ‘Do you mean St. Gregory, or Nerses, Sahak, or any 
other of his sons *?’ 


1 = ὁμωνύμως καὶ οὐ φυσικῶς. These canons of Sahak have an air of being 
a translation from Greek. 

* ‘(Qui per singula loca mansionibus atque hospitiis praeerant’ in Acta 
Archelat, c. iv, where these refuges are also called diversoria. 

3 Suvedpia . . . πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι προσευχὰς αὐτὰ λέγουσι. 

* Nerses Lambron. p. 25. .- 


NERSES OF LAMBRON elxvii 


‘But,’ went on the objectors to Nerses of Lambron, ‘your 
churches are anointed with myrrh and consecrated’. Why 
are we perverted, because we say our prayers at home? Do 
we not say the same prayers in the church and out of it? Did 
not Paul say: “In all places shall they raise pure hands without 
anger or double-mindedness’.” ’ 

Nerses then gives an interesting, but insufficient, account of the 
ingrained prejudice of his countrymen against churches. ‘When 
for our sins we passed under the yoke of aliens, and the sword of 
Ishmael prevailed over the entire land of Armenia, the inhabitants 
of the land emigrated into the country where * we now are, which 
belongs to the Romans. And not being in communion with them, 
for reasons which I have examined elsewhere, the Romans did not 
permit them to pray in their own special churches which were in 
this country. But they, being wanderers, and confident of return- 
_ ing again to their fatherland, only built humble chapels (ma¢roung) 

for temporary purposes, as we see. And when they found no 
means of going back, and began to multiply here, the church 
became too small to hold them all, and they of necessity built 
houses contiguous. But this building of houses which was of 
necessity became at last, when times changed, a root of evil and 
of indolence; for they were shy of praying in church as in the 
house of God, and grew remiss outside it as being in a common 
house. Self-indulgence got the better of true religion, and they 
began everywhere to build these houses by way of giving rein to 
their shyness; and so perforce they withdrew themselves from all 
decorum.’ 

We cannot accept this account, for we know that the prejudice 
against churches went back to the beginnings of Christianity in 
Armenia; and we are tempted to connect the Armenian custom 
with that of the Celtic Christians, who built clusters of tiny 
oratories, but never one large church. 

As the result of seeing priests conducting prayers anywhere, the 
common people, continues Nerses*, had taken to praying on 
house-tops or on beds. This again was merely an oriental habit 
in vogue amongst the earliest Christians. The same people, 
Nerses declares, disapproved of monks and celibacy, and decried 


1 Nerses Lambron. p. 26. 
? Ibid. p. 29. 
5 i.e. Cilicia. 
* Nerses Lambron. p. 31. 


clxviii THE KEY OF fRUMz 


all sorts of church vestments? and trampled them under foot as 
mere superfluities®. ‘Is not purity of soul enough?’ they asked. 
‘What do you want to dress up for?’ And Nerses answers: ‘ If 
you deem purity of soul enough without sensible signs, then you 
had better teach us to baptize without water, to pray without 
church, to offer the mass without bread.’ 

Nor was this the worst. ‘There were many, so Nerses relates °, 
who not only never went to church, but abstained from the sacra- 
ment for a whole year, or even for several years; and these not 
mere men of the world, but monks and priests. And instead of 
being ashamed of their neglect, they boasted of it, as if it were 
a thing to be praised. They declared that it was pious fear which 
kept them away, a sense that they were unworthy to share in the 
mystery. It was evidently a form of self-imposed penance on 
the part of those who so abstained. 

Yet Nerses does not give us to understand that the people he so 
severely blames were an heretical sect, as they had long before 
become further east in Taron. They seem to have been imbued 
with a primitive and unorganized Christianity, to have been without 
any hierarchy and addicted to presbyteral government‘, to have 
been opposed to churches, vestments, and gorgeous feasts. Nerses 
set himself to counteract these prejudices, to reform them, and 
bring them up in all these matters to the level of the great Latin 
and Greek Churches, the separation from which of the Armenian 
he so keenly regretted. He never, like his contemporary Isaac 
Catholicos, came to be at feud with them; never, so far as we 
know, publicly exchanged anathemas with them. And this was 
probably due to the fact that he was on friendly terms with the 
Vatican, which, taking up a more statesmanlike attitude, sent 
missionaries to the primitive Christians of the Taurus, and tried 
to bind up and heal the wounds inflicted by the ruthless ferocity 
of the Byzantine Church. 

In the preceding pages we traced the history of Adoptionist 
opinion from its earliest extra-canonical expression in Zhe Shepherd 
of Hermas as late as the Acts of Archelaus and Manz. It is 
indicative of the silent revolution in Christian opinion which com- 
pleted itself in the fourth century, that in the next great disputation 


1 P. 81 foll. According to Greg. Mag. (p. 145) the Thonraki said the same 
thing: ‘We reckon the cross and the church and the priestly robes and the 
sacrifice of the mass (07. offering) all for nothing.’ 

? Nerses Lambron. p. 87. 3. Ibid. p. 105. * Ibid. p. 525. 


‘ 


FAUSTUS THE MANICHEAN clxix 


between a representative of the Church and a Manichean, it is no 
longer an Adoptionist who confronts the heresy, but a pneumatic 
Catholic; and one so accustomed to the latter type of creed, as to 
ride lightly over the difficulties which had taxed the ingenuity of 
Justin Martyr. The Antagonists now are Faustus and Augustine, 
and the scene of their disputation is North Africa. In his exqui- 
site Latin, and with his usual subtlety, the former lays bare the new 
Catholic position. He is criticizing the narrative of Matthew's 
first chapter and writes thus (Augustine c. Faus/um, lib. xxiii, 
Cc. 2):— 


‘Ut ergo huic interim dicenti (sc. Matthaeo) credam, filius 
Dauid erit mihi de Maria natus; adhuc de dei filio in hoc omni 
generationis textu nulla fit mentio usque ad baptismum scilicet ; 
frustraque calumniam uos ingeritis scriptori (sc. Matthaeo), tan- 
quam dei ille filium in utero mulieris incluserit. At uero hic 
clamitat, ut uidetur, et inscriptione ipsa sua se prorsus ab hoc 
sacrilegio uindicat, Dauid filium perhibens ex illa stirpe oriundum 
se scripsisse, non filium dei. Nam Jesum quidem eum, qui sit 
filius dei, si scriptoris huius mentem propositumque consideres, 
non tam ille de Maria uirgine uult nos accipere procreatum quam 
factum aliquando per baptismum apud fluenta Iordanis. _ Illic 
enim dicit baptizatum a Iohanne eum, quem Dauid in exordio 
filium designauit, factum aliquando filium dei post annos, dumtaxat 
secundum Lucae fidem, ferme triginta; ubi et uox tunc audita est 
dicens ad eum: filius meus es tu; ego hodie genui te. Uides 
ergo id, quod ante annos triginta, ut huic uidetur, de Maria natum 
est, non esse ipsum filium dei, sed id, quod de baptismo postea 
factum est ad Iordanem, id est hominem nouum tanquam in nobis 
eum credimus, ad deum ex gentilitatis errore conuersi: quod ipsum 
tamen nescio utrum satis cum ea fide faciat, quam uos Catholicam 
nominatis ; sed interim sic Matthaeo uidetur, si sunt ipsius haec. 
Neque enim usquam in parturitionibus Mariae dictum legitur 
illud: fiius meus es tu, ego hodie genut te, aut: hic est filius meus 
dilectissimus, in quo bene complacud; sed in expiatione eius apud 
Iordanem.’ 


The Manicheans maintained a singularly objective attitude 
towards the Church, and were keenly alive to the differences which 
parted the orthodoxy of the Tigris towards the end of the third 
century from the orthodoxy of Carthage at the close of the fourth. 
Doctrine that was Catholic then was no longer Catholic now. 
Accordingly Faustus continuing drives home against Augustine 


clxx THE KEY OF TRUTH 


the point just raised of the incompatibility between the new 
‘Catholic’ doctrine and the narrative of Matthew :— 

‘Quod si et tu credas ita, ut scriptum est, eris iam quidem 
Matthaeanus—sic enim mihi dicendum est—Catholicus uero nequa- 
quam. Nam Catholicam fidem nouimus; quae tanto longe abest 
ab hac professione_Matthaei, quanto procul est et a uero, siquidem 
symbolum uestrum ita se habeat, ut credatis in Iesum Christum 
filium dei, qui sit natus ex uirgine Maria. Uestrum ergo est de 
Maria accipere filium dei, Matthaei ab Iordane, nostrum ex deo.’ 

It is to be regretted that we have so little left of a writer who 
could point the contrasts of doctrine so well and tersely. 

Beyond certain unguarded utterances of Tertullian and a hint of 
Augustine’s?, we have no trace of the Adoptionist Church in North 
Africa. But in Spain, a country of which the evangelization was 
largely the work of African missionaries, we find this type of 
Christology rife as late as the end of the eighth century. At this 
date, if you probed Spanish orthodoxy, you found Adoptionist 
tenets lying immediately under the surface. And it was also in 
Spain that this type of doctrine came to be known by the name 
Adoptionism, which in the preceding pages I have used to indicate 
it. This was in the controversy between Elipandus (the Arch- 
bishop of Toledo at the end of the eighth century) and Alcuin 
or Albinus. 

We have enough of the writings of Elipandus left to be able to 
understand his position, in upholding which he evinced a remarkable 
contempt for the Papal See. In a letter against a Spanish docete 
named Migetius, this antagonism to the usurpations of Rome is freely 
displayed. Migetius had broached the opinion, if we may believe 
Elipandus, that St. Paul was the Holy Spirit and Third Person of 
the Trinity, and had appealed to the Pope. Elipandus in answer 
reprehends the teaching that the words, ‘Thou art Peter, &c., 
applied to Rome alone, and as Migetius had evidently not appealed 
in vain from the authority of the Spanish Primate to that of the Bishop 
of Rome, writes thus: ‘Nos vero e contrario non de sola Roma 
Dominum Petro dixisse credimus, “ΤᾺ es Petrus,” scilicet firmitas 
fidei, ‘et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam” ; sed de 
universali Ecclesia Catholica per universam orbem terrarum in pace 
diffusa’ (Migne, P. Z. vol. xcvi. 867). In this repudiation of the 
usurped authority of Rome we have a striking parallel to the 
attitude of the Paulicians and of the early British Church. 


1 See above, p. cxxvii. 


THE MUZARABIC LITURGY clxxi 


Elipandus, however, was not a pure Adoptionist, but mechani- 
cally superposed on a basis of Adoptionist tenets, the belief in the 
incarnation in the Virgin’s womb of a pre-existent Divine Logos, 
along with a formal acceptance of the decrees of the Councils and 
of the post-Nicene Fathers. The result was a see-saw. But he 
plainly neither felt the difficulties nor saw, as did his antagonists, 
the inconsistencies of his transitional position. Moreover, he 
was able to appeal in favour of his views to the Muzarabic 
liturgy of Spain. Thus in a controversial letter addressed 
to Albinus (Lizpandus ad Albinum, Migne, vol. xcvi. 874) he 
cites the rituals of the Spanish Church of the eighth century as 
follows :— 


‘In missa de tertia feria Paschae: ‘“Respice, Domine, tuorum 
fidelium multitudinem, quam per adoptionis gratiam Filio tuo facere 
dignatus es cohaeredem.”’ This means that through the grace of 
adoption the faithful were co-heirs with the Son. Such a sentence 
might well be found in a Paulician Sacramentary. Another citation 
which he makes is the following: ‘Item in missa de quinta feria 
Paschae : “ Praecessit quidem in adoptione donum, sed adhuc restat 
in conversatione iudicium.”’ This might mean that the gift of the 
Sonship came first through adoption at the baptism; in the divine 
converse which followed on the mountain, Jesus, the adopted Son, 
received, and still retains, the prerogative of Judge of all men. 
Another passage from the same liturgy to which Elipandus appealed 
is the following: ‘Item ibi, “ Dignum et iustum est, salutare nobis 
atque conveniens, gratias agere, laudes impendere, intelligere 
munera, vota deferre tibi, Omnipotens Pater; et Iesu Christo filio 
tuo Domino nostro, qui pietati tuae per :adoptivi hominis pas- 
sionem quasi quasdem in praesentis populi acquisitione manu- 
bias, cum non exierit e coelo, exhibuerit e triumpho. Here 
the proper sense of cum non exierit de coelo seems to be that the 
risen Christ, now sitting at the right hand, without quitting heaven 
where he now is, exhibits to the Father the congregation present 
on earth as the spoils which in his adoptive humanity he had 
won. The two last passages cited by Elipandus are these: 
‘Item in missa de Ascensione Domini, “ Hodie Salvator noster 
per adoptionem carnis sedem repetiit deitatis; hodie hominem 
suum intulit Patri, quem obtulit passioni, hunc exaltans in coelis 
quem humiliaverat in infernis; is visurus gloriam, qui viderat 
sepulturam.”” .... ‘Item in missa sancti Sperati, “ Ingeniti Patris 
unigenite, Filius Dei Spiritu Sancto coaeternus et consubstantialis, 


clxxii DHE, ΡΥ ΘῈΣ ΠΕ ΠΗ 


qui ab arce sedis aethereae huius mundi infima petens, adoptivi 
hominis non horruisti vestimentum sumere carnis. . . .” 


In these extracts the phrase homo adopiivus may just as well 
signify the humanity assumed in the womb by ἃ pre-existent Divine 
Being, as the mere man chosen out as its tabernacle by the Holy 
Spirit, and so raised to the dignity of Son of God. 

Elipandus, it is true, affirms (Co/. 875) that by the ‘beatae Vir- 
ginis partu’ there came into existence neither ‘caro sine deitate’ 
nor ‘deitas sine carne’; whereas a genuine Adoptionist believed 
that it was caro sine devfate that was so born. 

Yet it was inevitable that his views should be condemned as 
heretical. For, though his Adoptionism was qualified in an ortho- 
dox manner, the speculations of Felix of Urgel, his associate, were 
more open to criticism. He denied, for example, and challenged 
the orthodox to prove the position: ‘ Quod ex utero matris verus 
Deus sit conceptus et verus sit Filius Dei (Ad. c. Fel. vii. 857). 
In the same spirit he contended that Jesus was born twice, first as 
a mere fleshly man of his mother, next as Son of God in his 
baptism: ‘Accepit has geminas generationes: primam videlicet, 
quae secundum carnem est, secundam vero spiritalem, quae per 
adoptionem fit. Idem redemptor noster secundum hominem com- 
plexus in semetipso continet, primam videlicet, quam suscepit 
ex Virgine nascendo; secundam vero quam initiavit in lavacro et 
consummavit a mortuis resurgendo’.’ 

In that age in Spain this Adoptionism was confused with the 
Nestorian heresy, about which in the East there had been so much 
noise ; and Felix gives an account of the latter which more pro- 
perly fits the Paulician opinion. It is as follows: ‘Haec est 
sententia Nestorii haeretici, qui purum hominem absque Deo 
Virginis utero genitum impie adstruebat. In quem hominem ex 
eadem sancta Virgine procreatum et genitum, post nativitatem 
eius, Verbum Dei, hoc est divinitatem Filii Dei, descendisse et 
habitasse prae caeteris sanctis impudenter praedicabat.’ 

It would also appear from the Zpzstola Heterit et Sancti Beati ad 
Elipandum (a.D. 785) that among the Spanish Adoptionists an idea 
survived which naturally accompanies such tenets, and which 
underlies the Paulician ordinal, namely that the elect ones are 
Christs. For in this Zzs/ola, ch. ix (Migne, vol. xcvi. 899), we read 
thus: ‘Sed non est de illis Christis (viz. the text: unus Dominus 


᾿ Alc. c. Fel. ii. f. 809. 1 follow Neander (Church Hist. Eng. ed. v. 225) in 
adding the words, ‘ et consummavit,’ which are requisite to complete the sense. 


ELIPANDUS. FELIX OF URGEL clxxiii 


Iesus Christus per quem omnia et nos per ipsum) de quibus dictum 
est : Nolite tangere Christos meos (Ps. civ. 15). Sed neque de illis 
de quibus haeretici dicunt: Et ille Christus, et nos Christi.’ 

Alcuin attributes to Felix this very opinion that the elect ones 
are Christs!: ‘Qui non natura,’ he writes, ‘ut Deus, sed per Dei 
gratiam ab eo, qui verus est Deus, deificati, dii sunt sub illo vocati.’ 
And the same thing is implied in the following: ‘In hoc quippe 
ordine Dei Filius dominus et redemptor noster iuxta humanitatem, 
sicut in natura, ita et in nomine, quamvis excellentius cunctis electis, 
verissime tamen cum illis communicat, sicut et in caeteris omnibus, 
id est in praedestinatione, in electione, gratia, in susceptione in 
adsumptione nominis servi’ (Adc. c. Fel. iv. 820). 

In Heterius’ letter (col. gor) the Paulician opinion and the sense 
of the Gospel narrative are in one and the same sentence repudiated. 
Take the following passage: ‘Nec sane /unc unctus est Christus 
Spiritu Sancto,guando super eum baptizatum ut columba descendit: tunc 
enim corpus suum, id est ecclesiam suam praefigurare dignatus est, 
in quo praecipue baptizati accipimus Spiritum Sanctum; sed ista 
mystica et invisibili unctione tunc intelligendus est unctus, quando 
Verbum Dei caro factum est, id est, quando humana natura, szme 
ullis praecedentibus bonorum operum meritis, Deo Verbo est in utero 
Virginis copulata, ita ut cum illo fieret una persona. Ob hoc eum 
confitemur natum de Spiritu Sancto et Virgine Maria. Absur- 
dissimum est enim, ut credamus eum, cum cam triginta esset 
annorum aetatis et a Ioanne baptizatus est, accepisse Spiritum 
Sanctum. Sed venit ad baptisma Ioannis sicut sine peccato; ita 
plenus Spiritu Sancto.’ Here the words italicized reflect the doctrine 
of Zhe Key of Truth, and prove that the Spanish Adoptionists held, 
if half-heartedly, the same belief as the Paulicians. Against no 
other belief can the arguments of Heterius and Beatus be directed. 
And the same conclusion results from the next ch. xiii: ‘Hoc 
totum quare diximus, nisi ut Iesum Christum qui de Virgine natus 
est, verum Deum et verum Filium Dei esse proprium firmaremus : 
Et deum inter deos, et adoptivum cum adoptivis, et parvulum cum 
parvults, et servum cum servis, ut haeretict blasphemant, aperta fronte 
negaremus? Ululant ipsi, Scripturam non tractant.’ 


1 St. Adamnan (679-704) shared this belief, and writes in his 1772 of St. 
Columba, bk. i. chap. 44, thus: ‘On hearing this discourse of the saint, the 
humble stranger, greatly astonished, worshipped C hrist in the holy man (i.e. in 
Columba).’ So chap. 37 : ‘the brethren, still kneeling with joy unspeakable, and 
with hands spread out to heaven, venervate Christ in the holy and blessed man. 


_clxxiv THE KEY OF ΤΕ 


For the Spanish heretics, like the Paulicians, took their stand on 
the Scripture alone. And it was not a select few who held such 
opinions. On the contrary, the popular character and wide diffu- 
sion in Spain of their opinions is witnessed to by the two writers 
we have just cited, and in the same chapter, as follows: ‘ Non 
solum per Asturiam, sed per totam Hispaniam, et usque ad 
Franciam divulgatum est, quod duae quaestiones in Asturiensi 
Ecclesia ortae sunt. Et sicut duae quaestiones, ita duo populi 
et duae Ecclesiae, una pars cum altera pro uno Christo con- 
tendunt..... Una pars Episcoporum dicit quod Iesus Christus 
adoptivus est humanitate, et mequaquam adoptivus divinitate,’ 
&c. As in Armenia, so in Spain, the Adoptionist faith was 
a home growth, and a popular form of faith; and Neander 
(vol. v. 219)! is very wide of the mark when he suggests 
that Felix of Urgel was the author of this form of Spanish 
opinion, and that he had devised it by way of recommend- 
ing Christianity to the Arabs. Certainly the Adoptionist faith 
approximated to the Mohammedan view of Jesus Christ, and 
accordingly we find that Greek writers applied to the Paulician 
Emperor Constantine Copronymus the epithet Σαρακηνόφρων. But 
that only proves that the Mohammedan view of Christ was drawn 
from Adoptionist circles of Christians. That an opinion so widely 
diffused in 790 in Spain and Gaul had been invented only just 
before as a missionary device, it is absurd to suppose. 

In ch. xl of the same Zf7s/ola (cols. 916, 917) is given the 
Symbolum Fide’ Elipandiae. In it the Archbishop of Toledo 
begins by reciting his faith in a Trinity of Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, who are ‘unius glomeratio charitatis, unius ambitus 
dilectionis coaeterna substantia.’ This view of the tie binding the 
Persons into one as a tie of love reminds us of Paul of Samosata. 
The kenosis of the pre-existent Son is then asserted, and the 
theophanies of the Old Testament enumerated and explained as 
appearances of the Son of God, ‘emptying himself of his invisible 
Godhead’ (‘ Deitatem invisibilem exinaniens’). Then the Pneu- 
matic doctrine is formally enunciated thus: ‘Verbum Dei. . 

! Neander writes (v. 220) : ‘ But what he (Felix) had to prove was, the doc- 
trine of the incarnation of God, and of the Deity of Christ, against which and 
the doctrine of the Trinity the fiercest attacks of the Mohammedans were 
directed; and by his apologetic efforts in this direction, he may have been 
led to seek after some such way of presenting this doctrine, as to remove, 
wherever possible, that which proved the stone of stumbling to those of the 


Mohammedan persuasion. Thus we might explain the origin of the Adoption 
type of doctrine.’ 


ADOPTIONISM IN SPAIN clxxv 


deitate exinanita, hominem factum, circumcisum, baptizatum, 
flagellatum, crucifixum, mortuum, sepultum, servum, captivum, pere- 
grinum, leprosum, despectum, et, quod est deterius, non solum ab 
angelis, sed etiam ab hominibus minoratum.’ 

Then follows the tenet of adoption as he framed it, thus: 
‘Non per illum qui natus est de Virgine visibilia condidit, sed per 
illum qui non est adoptione, sed genere ; neque gratia, sed natura.’ 

After which follows a genuinely Adoptionist outburst :— 

‘Et per istum Dei simul et hominis filium, adoptivum humanitate, 
et nequaquam adoptivum divinitate, mundum redemit. Qui est 
Deus inter Deos: qui utrum comedisset, an bibisset, ei cognitum 
manet, cui nonnulla actionis suae mysteria nescire voluit. Quia 
st conformes sunt omnes sancti huic Filio Det secundum gratam, 
profecto et cum adoptivo adoptivi, et cum advocato advocat, et cum 
Christo Christi, et cum parvulo parvuli, et cum servo servt. Credo 
etiam inter ipsa Sancti Spiritus charismata gratiarum, Spiritum 
Sanctum esse adoptivum in quo clamamus, Abba pater: in quo 
Spiritu non nego hominem Christum esse adoptivum. . . 


I have given these somewhat long extracts, in order to leave no 
doubt in a matter of importance. It is obvious that such phrases 
as, ‘Et ille Christus, et nos Christi’; or as, ‘Deum inter Deos, 
adoptivum inter adoptivos’; or as, ‘Cum advocato advocati,’ did 
not arise, and were not new, in the Spain of the eighth century. 
They transport us at once into the circle of ideas of which Zhe Key 
of Truth isa monument. ΑἹ] the holy ones, all ‘ the saints,’ as the 
Epistles of Paul term the baptized, who conform to the Son of God 
according to grace, at once become ‘adopted with the adopted one, 
paracletes with the Paraclete, Christs with the Christ, little ones 
with the little one, servants with the servant.’ Here are expressed 
the thoughts, perhaps the truths, which inspired the Paulicians. 
Elipandus did not invent either phrase or idea; but they must 
have been handed down to him from the same age, must have 
ultimately flowed from the same fountain-head, from which the 
Paulicians inherited them. 

If there is any doubt on this point the Efzstola Heferit removes 
it by its statement of the tenets of the Here/icz, as the party of 
Elipandus are called. They are these: ‘Christ was anointed by 
the Holy Spirit, i.e. became the Messiah, then and then only, when, 
after he had been baptized, the Spirit descended on him as a dove. 
He was then chosen the Christ, because he had earned the dignity 
by his previous good works.’ They held also, says Heterius, that 


clxxvi THE KEY OF TRUTH 


though he was without sin when he came to John to be baptized, 
still he was not as yet filled with the Holy Ghost. Why this was 
so the Adoptionist Acés of Archelaus explain; for in them we had 
the following reason adduced against the tenet of Jesus’ divinity: 
‘Si perfectus erat, si virtus erat, si Filius erat, non poterat Spiritus 
ingredi, sicut nec regnum potest ingredi intra regnum. The 
doctrine implied in the words: κατὰ προκοπήν, κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν vids Θεοῦ, 
could not be better expressed than Heterius expressed it. And if 
we compare the sententia Nestorit, which Felix in his recantation 
attributes to the same party, we see it to be in almost verbal 
agreement with Zhe Acts of Archelaus. ‘Thus the words, ‘prae 
ceteris sanctis,’ recall those of Archelaus, ‘super omnes sanctos 
TIesus.’ And as in the Senéenfva the man of Nazareth is ‘ purus homo 
absque Deo Virginis utero genitus’; so Archelaus writes, ‘ Dico 
autem de eo qui ex Maria factus est homo,’ followed by the words, 
‘Christus Dei... descendit super eum, qui de Maria est. In the 
same context he even reproaches Mani with believing that ‘God 
has transformed himself into a man, using the very terms of the 
pneumatic Christology (‘quia Deus transformaverit se in hominem’). 
Thus Heterius assails in Elipandus the very tenets which Archelaus 
urges against Mani, namely that Jesus was born a mere man, and 
was only at his baptism chosen Son of God and Messiah, as a reward 
for his human advances in goodness. It is instructive also to note 
how conscious Heterius is of the mutual incompatibility of the two 
rival Christologies. If Jesus -was already God in His mother’s womb, 
then what sense attaches to the descent of the Spirit in the baptism? 
Heterius is aware that this episode is not wanted; and accordingly 
he tries to explain it away by pretending that in the narrative of the 
baptism the body of Christ, on which the Spirit descended, was 
merely allegorical of the Church. Our own Bede’, hard pressed by 
the necessity of uniting the two Christologies in a single scheme, 
had propounded this very device. 

It is evident then that in the Church of Asturia there was a purely 
Adoptionist party behind Elipandus of Toledo; and by the light of 
their more extreme tenets we must interpret, not only the creed 
of the latter, thinly veneered as it is, with a show of the pneumatic 
doctrine; but also the use in the Spanish Liturgy of the terms 
adoptivus homo, adoptio carnis. These phrases arose in an age 
when they meant what they should mean, viz. that the fleshly man 
Jesus was chosen out and adopted to be the Son of God by the 


1 See below, p. clxxx. 


THE SENSE OF ADOPTIVUS clxxvii 


descent of the Spirit, and not that a pre-existent Divine Being 
adopted or put on flesh in the Virgin’s womb, as a screen or 
disguise of his omnipotent Deity’. This latter sense was indeed 
imported into the phrase by the Latin Fathers whom Elipandus 
cites, and perhaps by the compilers of the Spanish Liturgy as well ; 
but in doing so they forced an alien meaning upon it. They found 
before them the obstinate language of another Christology, and had 
to make the best of it. And Elipandus tries hard to make the best 
of it, as when, in his letter to Migetius (Migne, vol. xcvi. 871), he 
almost pathetically asks :‘ Quare non dicatur adoptivus, qui ita totus 
est in nostris, sicut totus est in suis, praeter delictum? Ecce loachim, 
cuius filia gloriosa Dei Virgo Maria esse dignoscitur, adoptiva esse 
creditur. Quare non dicatur adoptivus Dominus Iesus Christus de 
eadem generatus?’ He does not see that he gives his case away, when 
he draws this parallel between the Virgin and Jesus. For she was 
not regarded as pre-existent or divine, but in the Annunciation was, 
because of her previous saintly life, only chosen out (dignoscztur) 
as the Virgo Dez to harbour the Holy Spirit. What else did the 
pure Adoptionists claim in regard to Jesus but this very thing? 

As in the earliest Roman Church of which we know anything 
definitely, the rival views, that God became man by natural birth, 
and that Jesus became Son of God per profectum and by election, 
were in conflict, yet had each to tolerate the other as orthodox 
until the year 190; so they were still in conflict in the Church of 
Asturia as late as the eighth century. As Paul of Samosata and 
later the Nestorians tried to combine the genuine Adoptionist 
belief with the pneumatic doctrine, but really only overlaid the 
one with an appearance of the other, so Elipandus mechanically 
juxtaposed with the earlier and more primitive view the phraseology 
of the Councils. Lastly, as the Emperor Aurelian, from motives 
of high policy, suppressed the Adoptionist theology in the person of 
Paul of Samosata in Syria in the third century, so, early in 
the ninth, Charlemagne, probably from similar motives, tried 
to suppress it in Spain in the person of Elipandus, Archbishop 
of Toledo. It did not suit imperial policy that there should be 
one type of Christology in Rome, and another there. However 
much the provincial Church might value its independence, and 
lay claim to an equal share with Rome in the authority of St. Peter, 
it must conform from reasons of state alone. 


1 The early Fathers commonly speak of the Incarnation as a veil or disguise 
assumed by a divine and all-powerful Being, eager to lay an ambush against 
Satan. 

m 


clxxviili THE KEY OF TRUTH 


We cannot expect that the Spanish ecclesiastic of to-day would 
own that his national Church in its infancy held a form of creed 
which was afterwards pronounced heretical; still less that this 
primitive opinion held its own even as late as the ninth century. 
The higher ecclesiastics, no doubt, like Elipandus and the bishops 
who sided with him, managed to give an appearance of orthodoxy 
to their professions, by introducing watchwords of the Greek 
Councils held far away at the other end of the Mediterranean. 
But these did not fit in with the main structure of their belief. 
And acute opponents like Heterius and Albinus knew well what 
was underneath the surface, and, with unsparing pens, laid the 
heresy bare. ‘That they invented the form of creed which they 
charged the party of Elipandus with holding is out of the question. 
There was no source from which they could have derived their 
very accurate description of Adoptionist belief, save the Spaniards 
who held it. 

And to prove how clearly and accurately they conceived of it, 
we venture to add to the extracts from Heterius already given, 
one more which clinches the point. It is this (ch. 56, Migne, P. LZ. 
vol. xcvi. 926): ‘Sed multi heretici in Ecclesia prodierunt, qui 
mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Jesum purum 
hominem creatum dicerent, sed ex gratia deificatum, tantumque ei 
sanctitatis tribuerint, quantum de sanctis caeteris, eius videlicet 
famulis, agnovissent . . . quidam haeresiarcha? dixit: ‘‘ Christo 
Deo facto; si volo, et ipse possum fier.” Et ille (sc. Elipandus) 
se aequari voluit, qui simili sensu de eo dixit: ‘Et ille Christus, et 
nos Christi. Et ille adoptivus, et nos adoptivi.”.... Qui Iesum 
Dominum nostrum, non per mysterium conceptionis, sed per 
profectum gratiae Deum putavit; perversa allegatione astruens 
eum purum hominem natum; sed ut Deus esset, per meritum 
profecisse, atque ab hoc existimans et se et quoslibet illos ei 
posse coaequari qui filii Dei per gratiam fiant. ... Non sicut 
iste haereticus (sc. Elipandus) decipit, aliter in humanitate, aliter 
in deitate est. Non purus homo conceptus atque editus, post 
meritum, ut Deus esset, accepit: sed nuntiante angelo, et ad- 
veniente Spiritu, mox Verbum in utero, mox intra uterum Verbum 
caro,’ 

And the bishops of Spain themselves, in their letter to the 
bishops of Gaul, wrote thus (Migne, P. Z. vol. ci. 1332): ‘ Con- 
fitemur et credimus eum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, 


? Viz., Paul of Samosata, see p. cvi. 


EARLY BRITISH CHURCH AND BEDE  clxxix 


non genere esse Filium Dei, sed adoptione; neque natura, sed 
gratia.’ 

The Jesuit Enhueber, in his Déssertatio Dogmatica [Historica 
contra Christianum Walchium (in Migne, vol. ci. col. 337 foll.), points 
out that in the history of the Spanish Church there were already, 
before the age of Charlemagne, many traces of similar heresy. 
I believe that a careful search in the libraries of Spain, especially 
in those parts of the country which longest remained under Muslim 
domination, might reveal some monuments similar to Zhe Key 
of Truth, purely Adoptionist in their tendency, and uncoloured 
by the pneumatic Christology. The Adoptionist clergy, driven 
out of the domains of Charlemagne, took refuge in the Moorish 
dominion of Spain, just as the Paulicians of the East found 
a refuge in the Empire of the Khalifs. And under Moorish 
protection they must have lingered on for centuries. 

We have no documents of the early British Church, which 
have not come down through the hands of Catholics, and been 
subjected to recension. But it is natural to suppose that the 
heresy of which it was accused so vaguely by Bede and others 
was really Adoptionism. It is possible that this Church adhered to 
the Jewish custom of celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan ἡ. 
But the leading error in which they were implicated concerned 
baptism, and it is here that we touch the very centre and origin of 
the chief heresies of Adoptionists. However, Bede and other 
writers are very vague and reticent, though sweeping enough in 
their charges?. It is almost natural to suppose that the reason 
why the British bishops refused even to eat with St. Augustine 
was this, that the Church of the latter, having adopted infant 
‘baptism, was no longer a Christian Church at all. In his 
commentary on the Gospel Bede may be supposed, in com- 
bating errors, to have combated those which he was familiar 
with in his own country, and from which he was most anxious to 
save those for whom he wrote. Now it is remarkable how 
often and vigorously he assails Adoptionist views, especially in 


1 This is disputed, however, by competent authorities, who urge that the 
Britons merely clung to a calendarial error; and did not differ in principle 
from the rest of the West. 

2 The charge that the British bishops refused to join with Augustine in 
preaching ‘the Word of God,’ probably signifies that they were not sound 
about the Incarnation. The charge against the Paulicians was sometimes put 
in the same way. 

m 2 


clxxx THE KEY OF TRUTH 


explaining the Gospel of the Baptism of Jesus. The point is 
one of such interest that we quote a few typical passages :— 


Bedae in Marct Evang. Expos. tb. 1: ‘Manet autem in illo 
Spiritus, non ex eo tantum tempore quo baptizatus est in Iordane, 
sed ex illo potius quo in utero conceptus est virginali. Nam quod 
in baptizatum descendere visus est Spiritus signum erat conferendae 
nobis in baptismo gratiae spiritualis.’ 

In Ev. Luc. Expos. tb. 1: ‘Nemo enim putet Dominum post 
baptisma primum Spiritus Sancti gratia perunctum, aut aliquem 
divinae naturae per tempora gessisse profectum, sed noverit potius 
a primo conceptus humani tempore quem verum hominem, eundem 
et Deum existere verum.’ 


In the same context Bede implies that the Lenten fast, as 
commemorative of the fasts of Moses and Elias of old, and of 
Jesus under the new dispensation, was by some kept immediately 
after the Epiphany, for he asks: ‘In qua autem parte anni 
congruentius observatio quadragesimae constitueretur, nisi confinis 
atque contigua dominicae passionis.’ Here he glances at some 
who did not keep it as a fast preliminary to our Lord’s passion. 

In his eleventh Homily, ‘In die festo Theophaniae,’ Bede again 
combats the Adoptionists. He is explaining the descent of the 
Spirit. The aim of the Gospel narrative here is, he says, ‘ut hinc 
nimirum fides nostra confirmetur, per mysterium sacri baptismatis 
aperiri nobis introitum patriae coelestis, et Sancti Spiritus gratia 
ministrari. Numquid enim credi decet Domino tunc primum 
coelestia patuisse secreta, cum recta fides habeat non minus 
tempore quo cum hominibus conversatus est, quam et post et 
antea in sinu Patris mansisse, et sedem tenuisse coelestem. Aut 
a tricesimo aetatis suae anno, quando baptizatus est, Spiritus 
Sancti dona percepit qui prima conceptione Spiritu Sancto plenus 
semper exstitit.’ 

In discussing also the age of Jesus at baptism, he goes out 
of his way to say that it was the right age for priestly ordination, 
and so forth, as if he knew of some who deemed it to be the right 
age for baptism. As he spent his entire life in Weremouth, and 
never went outside these islands, it is difficult to believe that in 
such passages as the above he is not assailing a form of error 
which he saw around him. 

In Bavaria and in Burgundy we have better evidence that 
the earliest Christianity was Adoptionist; for, from the life of 
St. Salaberga (Acfa SS. Sept. vi. p. 521, die xxii), written about 


CHRIST IMMANENT IN THE FAITHFUL clxxxi 


688, forty years after her death, we learn that the Gens Boicariorum 
or Bori, in furthest Germany, were infected with the heretical belief 
that Jesus Christ was a mere man, ‘absque Deitate Patris.. In 
Burgundy the same Ac/s relate (p. 522) that the heresy of Bonosus 
and Photinus infected the Warasci who lived in the province of the 
Sequani on both sides of the river Doubs. It was already an old 
heresy, ‘aevo iam senes tabescebant,’ about the year 600, and 
St. Salaberga and her teacher St. Eustasius spent their lives in 
combating it there and in Bavaria. It is a question whether 
they were successful, for at a later period we find Gascony 
a hotbed of Cathar heresy. 

Although the inspiring idea of the Paulician ordinal is this, that 
the elect one is a Christ, yet it is never so boldly affirmed in it as 
in the monuments of the Spanish Adoptionists. Perhaps the 
idea was made explicit in the lost chapters, but in the parts 
preserved we only have it implied and presupposed, as for example 
in the following passage of the baptismal service: ‘The baptizer 
must have been elected in accordance with the words of the 
heavenly Father to his beloved Son, “ This is my Son elect, hear 
ye him.”’ But here after all we have a sufficiently precise equation 
of the elect one with Christ. We may set beside it the parallel 
passage of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, ch. 4: ‘My child, 
by night and by day bethink thee of him who speaketh unto thee 
the word of God, and thou shalt honour him as Lord. For out of 
whom the Lordship is spoken, in him is the Lord’,’ 

It is regtettable that Tertullian’s work upon LZes/aszs has not 
come down to us, for it would have thrown much light on the 
office of the early Christian prophet and of the elect one who suc- 
ceeded him. Zhe Shepherd of Hermas, however, in some degree 
fills up the lacuna in a passage (Mand. xi) in which are laid down 
rules for the ‘discernment of spirits,—a very urgent problem in 
those days of inspiration. ‘No spirit given from God,’ we read, 
‘waits to be interrogated; but being possessed of the power of the 
Godhead, it speaks all things of itself, because it is from above, 
from the power of the Divine Spirit. But the spirit which submits 
to be asked questions’, and which speaks to suit the desires of 
men, is one which moves along the ground and is full of levity, 


1 Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. KEp. 5’: Τέκνον μου, 

lol an la a , A lel 2 »* A -€ , ἧς Ἀ 
τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μνησθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις δὲ 
αὐτὸν ὡς Κύριον" ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν. 


2 Like the Delphic oracle. 


élsacxcit THE KEY “OF “TRUTH 


because it has not the power; and it does not speak at all unless 
it is asked questions. How then, say I, O Lord, shall a man 
know which of them is a prophet and which a false-prophet ? 
Hear, he said, about the two kinds of prophets ... You shall from 
the way in which he lives judge of the man who has the Divine 
Spirit. Firstly, one who has the Divine Spirit which is from above 
is gentle and quiet and of humble mind’, and abstains from all 
wickedness and vain lust of this age; and he keeps himself in 
want above all men, and answers no man because he is asked 
questions; nor does he speak in secrecy. Nor does the Holy 
Spirit speak whenever any one wants it to do so; but then it speaks, 
whenever God desires it to speak.’ 

In the phase of Christian opinion represented by Zhe Shepherd of 
Hermas and by the Didaché, the possession of Jesus by the Holy 
Spirit differed from its possession of prophets and other ‘vessels 
of election’ rather in degree than in kind. Into Jesus the Holy 
Spirit entered and permanently rested in him; of other men it 
only took possession fitfully and from time to time, like the wind 
which bloweth where it listeth. In them it suspended the natural 
soul and superseded it. In him it coalesced therewith, because he 
alone was sinless, and, by successive feats of self-conquest, had made 
himself perfect. Still, as Origen declares*, it was the Christ, or 
Logos, or Son of God zz /esus, and not the natural man himself, 
that uttered such sayings as these: ‘I am the way, the truth, and 
the life,’ and ‘I am the door, and ‘I am the living bread, which 
came down from heaven.’ It was this ‘second God,’ as the same 
writer, adopting a Philonean phrase, elsewhere says *, which ‘ was 
familiarly united with* the soul of Jesus as with no other soul, 
because he alone had become able to perfectly support (//. con- 
tain) the supreme participation in the absolute reason, in the 
absolute wisdom, in the absolute justice.’ 

The Adoptionist standpoint could not be more neatly expressed 
than Origen here expresses it. The Montanists and the Paulicians 
and followers of Mani believed that their prophets and elect ones 
were similarly inspired with Jesus, though not-in the same degree. 
Thus the author of Zhe Key of Truth, in his exordium, declared 
that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write his teaching, 


1 In Bede the tests whereby the British bishops proposed to test Augustine on 
his arrival at our shores were the same. The Pope’s enyoy does not seem to 
have fulfilled them to their satisfaction. 

2 Origen, C. Celsum, lib. ii. ch. 9. 5. Thid. v. ch. 39, δεύτερος Beds, 


* ῳκειοῦσθαι καὶ ἡνῶσθαι, 


MONTANIST PROPHECY clxxxiii 


which was ‘the way, the truth, and the life’; and, as we have 
already remarked, the fragments of Sergius’ epistles indicate that 
he was equally persuaded that the Holy Spirit spoke through him- 
self as its organ. From the lips of a really noble teacher, such as 
was St. Paul or Sergius, such self-confident utterances are sublime, 
and we bare our heads before them; but in the mouth of a self- 
indulgent hierophant they become merely ridiculous, if not blas- 
phemous. 

The same idea underlies the narrative of the modern Thonraki 
on p. xxvil above, as well as the charges preferred against the Pauli- 
cians by Gregory of Narek and by Photius. By the light of the 
Paulician belief, and of the express words of Elipandus, we are 
also able to realize what it was that underlay the charge made 
against Montanus, that he considered himself to be the paraclete. 
The Montanist Church held a conception of the priest as one 
filled with the Spirit, which in the Great Church had faded away; 
and in it not only men, but women also, were raised, if not to be 
members of an organized priesthood, at any rate to the dignity of 
the prophetic office. God made his spirit to dwell in women as 
well as in men; and Prisca, one of the Montanist prophetesses, 
claimed to be ‘Christ assuming the outward form of a woman,’ 
In the Paulician Church the prophetic office has already been 
replaced by an organized priesthood or order of elect ones, from 
which it would appear that women were excluded. They had 
more respect for St. Paul’s opinion on such points than to admit 
them. Indeed, had it been their practice to ordain women, the 
virulence of their enemies would surely have fixed upon it’. There 
is, however, enough in common between the Montanist prophet 
and the Paulician elect one to account for the considerable resem- 
blance there is between the recorded sayings of the Montanist 
prophets and the utterances of Sergius in his letters *, of the author 
of the Aey*, and even of the Paulician elect one of Arkhwéli*. 
Montanus, it is true, went further than these, if it be that he said: 
‘I am the Lord God, the Almighty, present to you in man’s form,’ 
and ‘I the Lord God the Father have come,’ and ‘I am the Father 
- and the Son and the Paraclete®.. The Paulicians were too mono- 


It is affirmed in the historian Asolik (see p. 176, 72. 4), but in no other source. 
See p. li foll. Sp seeithey Key, Τ᾽ 71: 

Compare the worship of Christ in Columba, p. clxxiii 72. 

It must not be forgotten that we only know the Montanists through their 
enemies, who were bent on exaggerating and making ridiculous the old- 
fashioned tenets which survived among them. 


1 
2 
4 
5 


clxxxiv THE KEY OF TRUTH 


theistic to tolerate language such as this, though they might have 
passed the utterance of Maximilla, the Montanist prophetess, who 
exclaimed: ‘I am hunted as a wolf from the fold; I am no wolf. 
I am the word and spirit and power.’ A trace of the same feeling 
is observable in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, § 21, where Thekla 
sees the Lord Jesus sitting by her 2% the likeness of Paul. So the 
faithful of Lugdunum, as they gazed with their outward eyes on 
the crucified Blandina, deheld Jesus who had been crucified for them 
(Euseb. 4. £. 5. 1. 206). - And in the Acts of Philip (ed. M. R. 
James, p. 161, 16), Jesus appears to the faithful in the form of Philip. 

The same conception of the Sacerdos as a Christ or as a Para- 
clete also colours the heretical sects. Mani believed that he was 
the Paraclete, and the hierophant Marcus in Irenaeus, 1. 13, just as 
as if he were Christ or the Advocate, addresses the woman who is 
being elected or is receiving the spiritual baptism, as follows: 
‘I would fain impart to thee of my grace, since the father of all 
things beholds thy angel standing before him. But the place’ of 
the majesty is in us. It is meet that we should be one with each 
other. ‘Take first from me and through me the grace. Prepare 
thyself as a bride welcoming her bridegroom. ‘That thou mayest 
be what I am, and I be what thou art. Implant in thy bridal 
chamber the seed of light. Receive from me the bridegroom and 
contain him, and be contained in him. Behold grace hath 
descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy.’ Such was 
the ritual of ordaining a prophetess ; which, since it recalls much 
that we find in the New Testament and in Philo, must have been 
very olds - Its possible that the συνείσακτοι γυναῖκες, of whom we 
hear in connexion with Paul of Samosata (Euseb. 7. 30, 362) were 
akin to the Marcosian or Montanist prophetesses. St. Nouna, 
who converted the Iberians, and the early Armenian saints, 
Khipsima and Gaiana, probably belonged to the same category. 

That this conception of the elect one as a Christ should be equally 
diffused among Christian circles so widely parted from each other as 
those of Palestine and of Iona, as the Montanists, the Manicheans, 
the Paulicians, and the Adoptionists of Spain; and that among the 
last we should meet with its most striking and comprehensive 
formula: ‘God among Gods, Christ among Christs, advocate 
among advocates, servant among servants, little one among little 


* Cp. Hermas, cited on p. xc, #.1, and Acta Johannis (ed. M. R. James), 
chap. xi, Christus loguitur: οἶκον obit ἔχω καὶ οἴκους ἔχω" τόπον οὐκ ἔχω Kal 
τόπους ἔχω" ναὸν οὐκ ἔχω, καὶ ναοὺς ἔχω... .. ἴδε σεαυτὸν ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντι. 


PAULICIANS AND MONTANISTS clxxXv 


ones ’—all this is very remarkable for the proof it affords that the 
idea was very primitive in Christianity. And it is also an idea that 
brings us into touch with other religions older than Christianity. 
For example the Buddhists of Thibet believe that their high-priest 
or Llama is a re-incarnation of Buddha, and in ancient Phrygia, as 
well as in other parts of Asia Minor, the priest was often regarded 
as one with the god over whose cult he presided. 

We have already indicated (see p. Ixxiv) the probability of the 
Paulicians having been in communion with the Montanist Church. 
It is difficult to set any other interpretation upon the passage pre- 
served of the epistle of Sergius to Leo the Montanist, which I have 
translated above on p. lii. ‘Beware of thyself,’ he writes, ‘ lest 
thou inwardly rend the unswerving faith. And he exhorts him 
to receive the Paulician shepherds and teachers, even as he had 
received the Apostles and the four prophets. This at the least 
implies that Sergius recognized in the Montanists a genuine branch 
of the Catholic Church; and how could Leo rend inwardly the 
Faith, unless there was already communion between the bodies of 
believers to which they respectively belonged? Nor could Sergius 
use the words ‘unswerving faith’! unless he regarded the Mon- 
tanists as having retained a true baptism and a genuine priesthood. 
But that implies that these ‘ homines religionis antiquae’* rejected 
paedo-baptism, and that they were Adoptionists. 

A ruthless persecution of the Montanists took place under 
Justinian, when, according to Procopius (//7s/. Arcan. 11), they 
shut themselves up in their temples and burned themselves alive. 
But they by no means became extinct; and nearly 200 years later 
Theophanes (p. 617, ed. Bonn) relates that rather than submit to 
be baptized in the orthodox manner they brought their prophesy- 
ings to an end® and fixed a day on which they entered their 
appointed homes of error and burned themselves alive. 

This date brings us within one hundred years of Sergius the 
Paulician, and, as there was a tendency for persecuted sects to 
coalesce against their persecutors, it is not unlikely that the rem- 
nants of the Montanist Church were absorbed into the ranks of the 
Paulician. And accordingly, in the epistle of the patriarchs to the 


1 πὸ τέμνειν τὴν ἀκλινῇ πίστιν. 

2 Vide Acta S. Achatii apud Ruinart, c. iv. Tertullian, in speaking of 
Montanism as the ‘New Prophecy,’ meant that its content only, and not its 
form and mode of delivery, was new. 

2 Αἰεμαντεύσαντο ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ὡρίσαντο ἡμέραν καὶ εἰσελθόντες εἰς τοὺς ὡρισμέ- 
vous οἴκους Ths πλάνης αὐτῶν κατέκαυσαν ἑαυτούς. This was A.D. 722. 


clxxxvi THE KEY OF TRUTH 


emperor Theophilus, published among the works of John of 
Damascus (in Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. xcv. col. 373 and 376), the 
Paulicians are identified with the Montanists. In it the Iconoclast 
patriarchs, set up by the emperors Leo and Constantine in place 
of Germanus and Nicephorus, are called first Paulicians and then 
Montanists. And of the Iconoclastic triumph the writers exclaim : 
‘Again the Jews are glad. . . again the Montanists have seized 
the land.’ 

Professor Harnack has remarked that those Adoptionists who 
admitted the miraculous birth of Jesus already had a foot in the 
rival camp. And under this aspect the Paulician faith cannot be 
regarded as being so pure an example of its kind as was the 
Ebionism of Justin’s age, which held that Jesus was a man born of 
men. ‘The belief that Jesus was by nature sinless’, has resulted in 
two very different views of the Virgin Mary. According to the one, 
Jesus, being the new Adam, free from the sin of the old, did not 
take his flesh from her, but was a new creation, a fresh start in 
humanity; and the mother to whom he really owed nothing was 
merely the channel through which he came into the world. As 
has already been remarked (p. xlvi), it is probable that the Pauli- 
cians held this view. And if we accept the evidence of the deposi- 
tion of Manuk Davthean of Giumri (see p. xxv) as supplementing 
the lacunae of the Key, it is certain that they held and still 
hold it. ‘Christ,’ so the deposition runs, ... ‘was born a man 
of Mary, she losing her virginity, as it were, by the dus¢- 
engendered annunciation of Gabriel.’ It is true that here the 
word ζ πη τη ΕἼ,, which means earthy or dust-engendered, and 
renders χοικὸς in St. Paul’s Epistles, might be explained as a cor- 
ruption of $agf_kb, which means ‘spirit-engendered, spiritual.’ 
But such is probably not the case, for in the ordinal of the 
orthodox Armenians the novice is required to anathematize, among 
other heresies, that of ‘Anthroidus qui dixit de /erra assumpsisse 
Christum corpus suum, eumque transisse per virginem sicuti per 
canalem®.” Perhaps Avthroidus in the above is a corruption of 
Anthropoeidés. The view that Jesus was, like the first Adam, 
freshly formed of dust, was already heretical as early as the days 


' This admission did not, even to the orthodox Armenians, exclude a suscepti- 
bility to temptation; and accordingly in the exordium of their ordinal it is laid 
down that Jesus, after his baptism, fasted forty days in order to fortify himself 
against the assaults of Satan the tempter, which were to follow. 

* Denzinger, ii. 303. 


THE IDEA OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH clxxxvii 


of Irenaeus, and Marcion taught that Jesus was born of his mother 
as it were water through a tube. The purport of the heresy was 
not to represent Jesus as a mere appearance, for his flesh, because 
it was newly created out of dust by God, was no more putative 
than that of the first Adam; still less to present him as God incar- 
nate; but only to dig a ditch, as it were, between Jesus and all 
human progenitors by way of eliminating in him the fradux 
peccatt of the old Adam. Such a view is compatible with,—nay, 
tends to,—the brusque rejection of the honours decreed by the 
unreformed churches to the Virgin Mary; since, according to it, 
Jesus owed nothing to her. The rival Christology has attained 
the same end, namely the elimination of hereditary sin in Jesus, 
by other means. He is admitted to have taken his flesh from his 
mother, but she in turn is regarded as having been immaculately 
conceived, i.e. without original sin. Thus the fence which the 
Paulicians drew round Jesus is put further back around his mother. 
And this view is as favourable to the worship of the Virgin as the 
former was inimical. 

But after all we are here groping among shadows. From p. 74 
of the Aey it results that the writer viewed Jesus as a Saviour 
raised up by God from the seed of David (Acts xiii. 23); and this 
view properly excludes the idea of his being a special new creation 
no less than that of his mother’s virginity. It also fits in with the 
statement on p. 75 of the Δεν, that it was in the Jordan only 
that Jesus put on the raiment of light which the old Adam 
lost. We might infer that he only then became the new man, 
when the Shekinah descended upon him and he was filled with 
the Godhead. The Catechism, on the other hand, p. 120, has 
the question: ‘For how many reasons did the God of all send 
into the world the new Adam, his beloved?’ and so implies 
that he was the new Adam from his birth and not from his baptism 
only. And the section of the Aey (p. 114), ‘on the Creation of 
Adam and of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ begins in a way which 
suggests that the writer went on, in the leaf torn out, to describe 
Jesus as a creation out of the dust evoked by a single word of God 
as the old Adam had been evoked. But if the Aey ended with 
the ordinal (p. xlix, 7. 2), then these sections are additions of a later 
age; and we can suppose the Ay itself to have reflected the purer 
Adoptionist view, that Jesus was ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, and only 
became the new Adam through the Baptism in the Jordan. The 
Christian imagination early felt the need of some more detailed and 


clxxxviii SHE Κα OF TRUCE 


explicit account of the generation of Jesus than the Gospels afford, 
and that which we find ascribed to the Paulicians was, as is clear 
from Marcion’s adoption of it, the first in the field; and its difficul- 
ties only came to be felt at a later time, when it was found to con- 
flict with the place of honour assigned in a later stage of Christian 
opinion to the Virgin. 

If the hypothesis, urged in the preceding pages, that the Pauli- 
cians were old believers, be true, we should expect their rites to 
bear some resemblance to those of the orthodox Armenian Church. 
And this is the case. For example, in the orthodox baptismal 
service, which is the same for adults as for infants, save that in 
the case of the latter the God-parent makes the answers, prayers 
closely analogous to those of the Paulician rite of name-giving are 
worked into the document,and are offered at the Church door, where 
the procession halts before entering. Witness the following from the 
Prayer over the Catechumen before Baptism: ‘Accept now, good 
Lord, she eager good will of thy creature, who hath set his face to 
draw nigh unto thy holy and only true Godhead, bearing in him- 
self a Christian name. And give him strength and help both to 
be made worthy and to attain unto the purification of the holy 
font of spotless life and to the heritage of adoption into the king- 
dom of heaven, Christ Jesus our Lord.’ Both these clauses should 
evidently not stand in the same prayer. The first belongs to the 
service of baptizing an adult who has already received a Christian 
name, as the Paulician child receives one on its eighth day. The 
second properly belongs to a service of name-giving, held long 
before the baptism itself. For where is the sense of praying that 
a person may have strength to grow up and come to baptism, when 
within the space of some five minutes he will anyhow be baptized ? 
And to return to the first clause,—to say nothing of the entire 
inapplicability of its phrases to a new-born infant,—how can the 
Catechumen already bear a Christian name before he is baptized and 
has had one formally conferred on him? Again, compare with the 
Paulician prayers in the name-giving service on p. go, the following 
from the orthodox Baptismal service. The procession is still 
halting at the Church door and the priest prays thus: ‘ Look, 
O Lord, in thy pity upon him. Remove and drive away from him, 
by the calling out over him of thy all-powerful name, the lurking 
thoughts and words and deeds of foul spirits.... Fill him with 
thy heavenly grace, and make him to rejoice by thy most excellent 
calling, naming him a Christian. And Jef him become worthy, in 


ARMENIAN BAPTISMAL SERVICE elxxxix 


the proper season of baptism, of the second birth; and let him, 
receiving thy Holy Spirit, become body and limb of thy holy 
Church.’ This prayer is obviously more suitable to a service of name- 
giving than to the service of baptism itself. Thus the genesis of the 
orthodox baptism is plain. It is the older service of name-giving 
and the adult baptismal service of the Paulicians rolled up into one. 

And the same result follows from another consideration. The 
Paulicians insisted that the catechumen must himself ask for 
baptism. They did not go about seeking out infants, to privily 
baptize them, all unconscious, into their Church. The same 
stipulation, that the catechumens must of free-will ask for the 
boon, survives in the baptismal service of the orthodox Armenians, 
though it has no applicability to children-in-arms. Witness the 
following dialogue at the font :— 

‘The Priest says: What dost thou ask for? 

‘The Catechumen: I ask for baptism. 

‘The Priest: Dost thou sincerely ask for it? 

‘The Catechumen: With faith I ask to be baptized, and to be 
purified from sin, and liberated from devils, and to serve God. 

‘The Priest: Let it be unto thee according to thy faith,’ 

And forthwith the Priest continues thus :— 

Ν, or M., the servant of God, having come of his own free-will 
unto the catechumenate, and from the catechumenate unto baptism, 
is now baptized in my hands in the name of the Father (and here 
he pours one handful of water over the child’s head), and of the 
Son (and he pours another handful), and of the Holy Spirit (and 
he pours a third handful. And this is the essence of baptism, 
which he shall perform with uplifting of spirit)’ And then the 
priest immerses him in the water three times’. 

The whole ceremony as here detailed is obviously suitable to an 
adult only, and those who compiled it had no idea of baptizing 
infants, who cannot come of ¢heir own free-will and ask for 
baptism. It is not strange that orthodox Armenian clergy so 
often lapsed into Paulicianism, when their own baptismal service 
was so redolent of the heresy. 

The Paulician baptism, being conferred at the age of thirty, 
after much testing of the catechumen in faith and repentance, had 
the same solemnity for the individual which in the later Church the 
conferring of priestly orders alone retained. It is no matter for 
surprise, therefore, if certain features of the older rite of baptism, 


1 1 print the rubric between brackets. 


EXIG THE KEY -OF TRUTH 


which, as it were, made every man or woman into an organ and 
recipient of the Spirit, were transferred by the orthodox Armenians 
to their service of ordination. 

As the Paulician elect one asked the candidate for baptism 
(p. 96), ‘What fruit of absolution hast thou?’ so the orthodox 
candidate for priestly orders was asked, ‘Utrum habeat etiam 
opus iustitiae’?’ And the Paulician reasons for deferring baptism 
to the age of thirty, became reasons for deferring priesthood to 
that age, as we see in the following passage”: ‘Quarto si dignus 
fuerit presbyteratu, videat utrum pervenerit ad mensuram aetatis 
necne ; nam si fuerit immaturus et imperfectus aetate, ne ordinetur, 
nam omnis iuvenis puritatis studens erit et gloriae amans. Non 
enim habet ullam cogitationem impudicitiae, sed quando pervenerit 
ad mensuram aetatis, deinde apparent passiones naturae in 60, 
et a natura devictus cadit in peccata et errans conteritur.’ And 
with the first paragraph of ch. xxi of the Key (p. 96), compare the 
following from the direction which prefaces the orthodox Armenian 
ordinal*: ‘Sed secundum canonem imponat ei episcopus usque ad 
mortem. Primum ut habeat in se typum Christi, qui est mitis, 
humilis, misericors, hominum amator, mali immemor, et benignus. 
Quapropter dicit Dominus: Tollite iugum meum,’ &c. 

Lastly, the triple prayer in the presence of the Father, of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit, which in the Aey belongs to the baptismal 
service (see pp. 98-100), is in the orthodox rite appropriated to 
the ordinal. The three prayers are of course somewhat different 
in the two cases, and in the orthodox ordinal the two first of the 
prayers only distantly resemble the two prayers to God and before 
Christ with which the Paulician ordinal concludes. Still there are 
resemblances. It would take too long to detail them*; but they 
are sufficient to convince us that the orthodox ordinal is based 
partly on the Paulician rite of baptism, partly on the service of 
election. In the transmutation all phrases which savour of 
Adoptionism have been carefully eliminated. 

We have now reached the term of our investigations. It only 
rests to point out that this Paulician book aids us somewhat to 
simplify the history of Christian opinion. Philo, whose writings 


1 Denzinger, Rztus Orient. ii. 292. ? Thid. 8. Tbid. p. 296. 

* The student can compare the orthodox ordinal in Denzinger, p. 292 foll. 
We may remark that the Armenian Ordinal of a Priest, preserved in Brit. Mus., 
codex 19548, twelfth century, omits all the first part of the rite as given in 
Denzinger, and only begins it with the recitation of the Psalms given 
on his p. 307. 


ADOPTIONISTS AND WESTERN TEXT Excl 


anticipate Christianity as the glow upon the eastern heavens 
anticipates the sunrise, inspired with the belief in the ancient 
theophanies, which he interpreted as apparitions in human form of 
_ the Word of God, in a striking passage declares his conviction that 
it is easier for God to become man than for man to become God. 
He here sums up the two great divergent lines which speculations 
about the nature of Jesus were to follow. Already in the apostolic 
age, according to Prof. Harnack (Dogmen-Gesch. i. 181 = 160), 
the two opposed views were abroad in men’s minds: ‘ Entweder 
galt Jesus als der Mensch, den Gott sich erwahlt, in dem die 
Gottheit oder der Geist Gottes gewohnt hat, und der nach seiner 
Bewahrung von Gott adoptirt und in einer Herrscherstellung 
eingesetzt worden ist (Adoptianische Christologie), oder Jesus galt 
als ein himmlisches Geistwesen (resp. das héchste himmlische 
Geistwesen nach Gott), welches Fleisch angenommen hat und 
nach Vollendung seines Werkes auf Erden wieder in den Himmel 
zurtickgekehrt ist (pneumatische Christologie): diese beiden Christo- 
logien die streng genommen einander ausschliessen: der Gott-ge- 
wordene Mensch und das in Menschengestalt erschienene géttliche 
Wesen, &c.’ 

In The Key of Truth we have an example of the former, and we 
learn exactly with what conceptions of baptism, of priesthood, and, 
in a measure, of sacraments, it was associated. As Jesus was 
a mere man, Ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος, sin apart, it was not really irreverent 
(as the opposed Christologists supposed it to be) to regard as 
a Christ the Christian priest, elected by the Spirit and endowed 
with grace, according to the primitive formula, ‘I am thou, and 
thou art I’ (ἐγὼ σὺ καὶ σὺ ἐγώ)". This conception of priesthood 
certainly went less naturally with the opinion that Jesus Christ was 
God, eternal and pre-existing. Nevertheless, the Manicheans and 
the Montanists and the Adoptionists of Spain, all accepted, more 
or less definitely, the opinion that he was God, and yet retained 
this conception of the sacerdos. Adult baptism, apart from its 
greater antiquity as an institution, was also essential to Adoptionist 
Christianity, of which the inspiring idea was that the believer 
should model his life on that of Christ. A conception of the 
Christian priesthood, so peculiar and widespread as that which 
we have described, must obviously have profoundly influenced 
the doctrine of the sacramental meal; and we find in the case 
of the Paulicians, and of the possibly allied Cathar sects of 


1 Epiphan. Haer. 26, 3. 


cxcli DHE KEY OF ΠΕ ΠΗ 


Europe, that the transformation was not so much of the elements 
as of the priest celebrating the rite. Because he was Christ, 
therefore the elements became the body and blood of Christ 
in the moment when he pronounced over them the words, ‘This 
is my body and blood.’ Like all else that the sacerdos was and 
did, the eucharistic offering was as it were a rehearsal, or rather 
reproduction of Christ, a repraesen/atzo, in the Tertullian sense of 
the word. 

It was probably the Adoptionist missionaries who carried every- 
where with them the Western text (so-called) of the New Testament’, 
and Zhe Shepherd of Hermas, at one time included in the canon. 
For in this text there were many readings which reflected Adop- 
tionism in one or another of its phases. There was, for example, 
in Matt. i. 16, the reading, ‘ Joseph begat Jesus, which accords 
with the earliest Adoptionism of the Ebionites. In the account of 
the baptism, as already noticed, the Bezan codex of Luke adds the 
words, ‘ This day have I begotten thee’; and in the same codex, 
in Matt. iii. 16 the Spirit enters zzfo Jesus, and according to the 
Georgian text and Syrsin, it came and resfed on him. In Luke 
iii. 22 Lord Crawford’s MS. testifies that the older Armenian 
text read: ‘When the Holy Spirit came down and res/ed on him,’ 
Archelaus had a similar reading. He asks of Mani: ‘Quomodo 
poterit vera columba verum hominem zugred? atque in eo per- 
manere, caro enim carnem zgred? non potest*?’  Sedulous 
attempts were made in the texts used by the rival school of 
Christologists to make it appear that the Holy Spirit only alighted 
temporarily on Jesus in the Jordan, and neither entered him nor 
stayed with him. Similarly, the phrase ‘elect or chosen” was 
taken out where possible. ‘Thus the Arabic Tatian witnesses to it 
in Matthew’s account of the Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 5), ‘dilectus 
quem elegi.’ So in John i. 34, 6 ἔκλεκτος τοῦ Θεοῦ seems to have 
been read, and subsequently expunged. The Adoptionists, no 
doubt, appealed to such texts in proof of their doctrine that Jesus 
κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν ἐχρίσθη (see p. xci, 2.). We can trace the use of the 
Western text of Acts on p. 92 of the Aey in the words, ‘like 
Simon’s wife’s mother,’ where the original text must have been, 
‘like Simon Magus,’ for Codex D, in Acts viii. 24, adds, ὃς πολλὰ 


1 T owe this suggestion to Mr. Rendel Harris. 

2 Mani is arguing that the whole story is absurd, because a real dove could 
not enter a man. Archelaus replies that the spirit was real, but not the dove- 
like body it assumed. Tha* was only an ὁμοίωμα, 


DOCEMC TENDENCIES INHERENT CXCill 


κλαίων οὐ διελίμπανεν. Gregory of Narek refers to this passage of the 
Key when he asks (p. 128): ‘ What trace of good in Simon?’ To 
avoid such attacks the users of the Ay substituted the meaningless 
words, for Simon’s wife’s mother did not weep. 

But it was especially in its fasts and feasts that the Adoptionist 
Christianity contrasted with the Great Church. The holy year 
began with the Feast of John the Baptist; then, perhaps, came the 
fast of those who repented at his teaching. This was followed on 
January 6 by the Feast of the Baptism and Spiritual Re-birth of 
Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. Then began the quadra- 
gesimal fast commemorating the forty days and nights on the 
mountain, during which he was fortifying himself against the 
tempter. Later on came the commemorations of his entrance on 
the work of his ministry, of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, 
and of Zatik or Easter, which was kept on the fourteenth of 
Nisan. The Sabbath was perhaps kept, and there were no special 
Sunday observances. The Agapé and Eucharist were not separated, 
and the latter retained much of its primitive significance. Wednesday 
and Friday were not kept as fast-days. Of the modern Christmas 
and of the Annunciation, and of the other feasts connected with the 
life of Jesus prior to his thirtieth year, this phase of the Church 
knew nothing. The general impression which the study of it 
leaves on us is that in it we have before us a form of Church not 
very remote from the primitive Jewish Christianity of Palestine. 

In complete contrast was the pneumatic theology, as Harnack 
calls it, which saw in Jesus not a man who, at a mature age, was 
filled or possessed with the Divine Spirit, but God himself, putting 
on flesh in the womb of woman. This teaching allied itself at 
once with the belief in the miraculous conception, and with the 
schematism which the philosophic Judaism had already elaborated, 
namely of a Divine Word or Reason (Θεὸς Aédyos), eternal and 
pre-existent, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, image of God 
after which Adam was made, Son of God, and Mediator between 
God and all creatures, High Priest of Humanity, the same being 
that in the Old Testament had in frequent theophanies appeared 
in human form on earth, first coming down from heaven, and then, 
when his mission was fulfilled, returning to the right hand of the 
Father. In the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve, at Mambre 
to Abraham and Sarah, in the bush to Moses, in the lion’s den 
to Daniel, this Divine Zegos had appeared; becoming manifest 
to human senses, and assuming a huma voice, as a man with 


n 


CXCiV THE KEY (Or ΠΕ 


hands and feet, mouth and voice, feelings of anger and wrath, 
even with weapons, going in and coming forth among men. Such 
was the Philonean teaching about the epiphanies of the Word in 
the past, and it deeply influenced Christian thought. 

Yet it had its dangers. It might lead men into thinking that 
Jesus Christ was merely an angel; and since, according to Philo, 
the Word in its ancient epiphanies wore an ethereal body, and 
instead of eating and drinking, only caused in men’s minds the 
phantasy or appearance of eating or drinking, it too easily led 
them to a Docetic apprehension of Jesus, that is, to the opinion 
that he had a phantasmal body, and not real flesh and blood. If 
an angelic apparition then, so also now. Here we have the 
argument of Marcion and Mani, an argument which Tertullian 
found so cogent that to escape from it he altered the major 
premiss, and argued that the angels which appeared to Abraham 
were of real flesh and blood, and did really eat and drink. Some 
of the Docetic sects went further than others, and not only rejected 
the real flesh and blood of Jesus, but his human birth as well; and 
Mani assailed, as flat blasphemy, the opinion that the Divine Being 
would submit to enter the womb and be born. ‘The orthodox, 
herein at one with the Adoptionists, retorted—a little inconse- 
quently, it is true—that if there was no birth, then there was no 
passion, no resurrection, and no judgement. 

But they themselves did not wholly escape the all-pervading 
taint of Docetism. For, as Harnack truly remarks’: ‘Der Profectus, 
durch den Jesus erst zum Gott-gleichen Herrscher geworden sein 
soll (damit im Zusammenhang das Werthlegen auf den wunderbaren 
Vorgang bei der Taufe Jesu), ist fiir die eine (the Adoptionist) ; ein 
naiver Doketismus fiir die andere, charakteristisch. And such 
a naive Docetism we everywhere meet with, clinging like a skirt to 
the pneumatic Christology, even against its better will. It reveals 
itself in such beliefs as the following: that the Divine Word, Jesus 
Christ, was conceived through the ear? of the Virgin; and was born 
through her head? or right breast‘. The birth was not a real one ; 


1 Dogmen-Gesch. i. p. 185. 

2 Tertullian, De Carne Christz, ch. 17, in a parallel of Mary and Eve, implies 
this belief. Also Origen, C. Ce/sum, vii. 4. St. Ephrem held it; also the ortho- 
dox Armenian fathers, and in mediaeval hymns to the Virgin, we often 
have the line, ‘quae per aurem concepisti,’ e. g. in Bodl. MS. Latin Liturg. 10, 
fol. ΟἹ v°. 

3. See the Saltair na Rann, Oxford, 1883, ll. 7529, 7530. 

4 See Adrian and Rithens, Kemdb/e’s Salomon and Saturnus, p.204. This was 


IN THE PNEUMATIC CHRISTOLOGY CXCV 


she at once bore him and did not bear him’, and was never in 
a true state of parturition at all. His flesh was a mere blind, 
a disguise of his Godhood. It also showed itself in the denial of 
natural human functions to the Saviour. For, according to many, 
Jesus Christ, though he ate and drank, did not digest his food ; 
for all digestion is a process of corruption, and his body was 
incorruptible?. For the same reason he was not liable to evacua- 
tions, nor to secretions; and the text affirming that he sweated 
was effaced from copies of the New Testament at an early date, 
and is avoided by Athanasius. ‘This writer also affirmed® that he 
was naturally immortal, and that if he had not met with a violent 
death on the cross, he would never have died at all; that he was 
incapable of bodily disease or weakness, and although he felt 
hunger, he could not have been starved to death. 

All these traits affected his body. But the same tendency of 
the pneumatic Christology was observable in the psychology of 
the Saviour. His inner life, according to all the great orthodox 
writers, was a constant oscillation between the human and divine ; 
and his human ignorance was not real, but only what in theological 
phrase is termed an economy‘, and in plain English a pretence. 

With the pneumatic Christology there came also another way of 
looking at baptism. Jesus was a Divine Being and filled with the 
Spirit from his mother’s womb. If so, why should not baptism be 
turned into an opus operatum, independent of the merits and con- 
scious faith of the individual? Why should it not be effective for 
new-born children as well as for adults? If Jesus in the very womb 
was God, why should not infants harbour the Holy Spirit also? So 
the requirements of repentance of sin, and confession were allowed 
to drop out of sight, and infant baptism became the rule in the 
churches which had made this type of Christology their own. 


an Anglo-Saxon tradition. So the Bodhi-sattva was born from Maya’s right 
side (Kern, Der Buddhismus, 30 n.). Also Indra through his mother’s side, see 
kv, iv. 18. 1. So Osiris, in Plutarch de Iside et Ostride, xii. See art. by 
Andrew Lang, in Wéneteenth Century for Sept. 1886, p. 434, 2. 39, and 
Liebrecht, Volkskunde, 490. I owe these two notes to Dr. Whitley Stokes. 

1 So Clem. Alex., also Greg. Nyss. Zes¢2monia, and Maximus Taurin. 

2 So the orthodox Armenian fathers, who also held the belief next mentioned. 
Cp. Elipandus’ creed, p. clxxv: ‘ qui utrum comedisset an bibisset,’ &c. 

S e.g. De Incarn. Verbi, c. 21: ws μὲν ζωὴ καὶ δύναμις ὧν συνίσχυεν ἐν 
αὐτῷ TO σῶμα... μηδὲ νοσεῖν ἔδει τὸν Κύριον... ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐξασθενῆσαι ἔδει 
πάλιν τὸ σῶμα... οὐ λιμῷ διεφθάρη (sc. τὸ gpa)... οὐκ εἶδε διαφθοράν κ.τ.λ. 

* For a detailed working out of this point the reader may consult Canon 
Gore's Studies on the Incarnation. 


cxcvi THE, KEY (OF ΤῈ ΤΙ 


At the same time the priest became merely one who offers the 
eucharistic sacrifice and ceased to be a Christ. His liturgical 
character tended to obscure the prophetical aspect of his office, and 
room was provided for measuring the gifts of the Spirit and for 
drawing real distinctions of hierarchical grade, such as could not 
emerge, so long as the priest was an elect one, and the bishop no 
more than a summus sacerdos, not essentially different from, or 
more authoritative than, any other presbyter. 

We have already glanced at the fortunes of the early Adoptionist 
Church. Driven out of the Roman Empire, we find it at the 
beginning of the fourth century and later encamped along 
the borders of the Greek and Latin worlds, in Mesopotamia, in 
Armenia and in Spain, in Bavaria, perhaps in Britain. It would 
seem also to have lingered on in the ancient Church of Phrygia. 
Perhaps it was the pressure from behind of the advancing tide of 
Islam, both in Spain and in the Taurus, which, in the centuries 
immediately following, hurled it back into the Roman Empire, 
there to take a fresh start. In the east its recrudescence was 
favoured by the iconoclastic movement, one of those great bursts 
of anti-idolatrous enthusiasm which about once in every five 
hundred years seem to sweep across the face of Aryan civilization, 
starting from the Semitic races in contact with us and too often 
dealing out destruction to the fairest monuments of our ancient art 
and religion. But this recrudescence within the Roman Empire of 
Adoptionist teaching was shortlived, and it was not there that it 
really bore fruit. Yet it was not stamped out, but only driven 
under ground. It still lurked all over Europe, but especially in 
the Balkans, in Lombardy, in Gascony, and along the Rhine. In 
these hiding-places it seems to have gathered its forces together 
in secret, in order to emerge once more into daylight when an 
opportunity presented itself. That opportunity was the European 
reformation, in which, especially under the form of Anabaptist and 
Unitarian opinion, this leaven of the early Apostolic Church is 
found freely mingling with and modifying other forms of faith. 
In engendering this great religious movement, we feel sure that 
the Bogomiles of the Balkan States played a most important part. 
They were the chief purveyors to Europe of Adoptionist tenets, 
partly imbibed from Paulician missionaries. But they are still 
a missing link, and the discovery of some of their monuments 
can alone complete the investigation which, in the preceding pages, 
we have only. begun. 


I. THE ARMENIAN TEXT 


4-.} 1: 
ap hash 


61 1.1 VOW ECS Ab Ὁ Ὁ 


= 
ἡνμίγ αν. f [ὁ πε ἡ utp (pps tt 1782 ze ful pus ζω πῇ πα 


be f (jaw h SQuipatiny : 


[Mut wn ufphyb μι 8 ρϑοημη. 


(0. δ ων purl Sfp pupwqutoage be ῥαρᾶπι [δ βεῖιρ ες. 
fodiisthg γίμωμς μι ke yogiugplf ypupueutigar[dpetp yyt 
wn qutraguts Upphe [Apes aitguenp Yboguqayy ἤωρβ pep 
hurghuyp fp flpuy μέρ, ag Ubphfiy «ε΄ porate aphasiby 
quyutiath Suphacnp gapday ts wala μμηβαμ αι ἥν Seliap 
wn [Phat nbunts Πρ, Gfancufe apyease Sopa ἐρήμων apf 
ke [Fufuwtbdneits Sngeny uppay ναίειν, pon aqursuiling 
punting Sweunnughyag, be wuthunutig αν! Saypunense 
Suphucnpa (Feat quilkbayh guybp uibguenp ἤδη 
γα wp be ἦς αν wy ἃ Unpudtolay εδωῖιἤ αὐ, 
ὑρρῳ (Nig Sutipuatp be Τα με ρίν ων αΐηβ bhbghgease bunt 
dkpry Gpuncup sPppunnuf χήω [4 unepps oped papeauplp 


1 f “και pf μη" 2 4. 1882. 
3 4): ΣΧ 4 .: {jpapd-ng- 
B 


2 


fh Saunne: U anil πρῃ ἂν αι ἴδε fs upuip gdkg Sngf Sop 
kplianoph wn fb φρίη χάμω SutmyupS ἔκ Xpsfapunne [db fds 
hk huitp: Ovnp fi furgacg Slik pualleay bp qh gdiapunae [dfn 
Sogb fuuphac[dhut, gop bp dkp wok. ἄνπερ, ς γηᾶπες. 
guy Eft glu: “|po hes qauljan fig be qyneghaphuy pasty 
abg puduylgh Qunfiunomupup bk ng Xnfowpup: Onp pap 
fuapfit dinop puakpayhp fr prune Ofuncuf appr [uiplfuoufi 


he f way tas unr fre opt fepay* .φος 
ΠΕ ςωδῳ, (ἐσὲ ἅξᾳ puitits 


Sapage unpp Myunn [Beaty Shunt depyy Sfoneop sPpbor 
wnaup, ap fants Sacumughjag ἴδ. nyu gfeupaqug weal 
gigur bk ἧς kplfuaypg, wuyufoupaqag ἐν [db pl 
Sauunfg be cis ἀμαθία ἢ, apybu yuyn & pb ὑπερ 
he fp qunnneashat fap QoS atone 1} ἤρα she qap: dk das 
gens dujupet frp tule pute oPyppunan kp be purple 
froutt dep mquiquilkp wan (fanmupleayut)* aubyeef : 


Sweunnugh yng ΡΠ ufipljbugy, OL uppulacky he poco dhed 


τώ, SCOT itl tier 
20. 
7 Q: ζορῖν fepry +++: lepkpfi Gp: gacguisbs puun. dp 
beg brary. 


° 
v 


[πὰ ay Lystuy £, CYeVg ἐπ γε, by {νι 


{pyacla Uswygik pape 1, 


Uyaztupl gE p, gb dE pala gE wppusyre [{ ε Ἵ Je phipg A 
uypls : Yan [d Law gynefu 4: Sanding Qe 


ιν} evttp oppy Ue ταν ραίβίν ng be Sadi γα! wn kg, 
ayy fants mylophh® Sodiupfen Sarum purpura [δ νιν ὅς χάρις. 
thug Saye mbunts depay Spuncup Ppunnup npyeny bepmd 
ubpkyay: UW ὠμῶν apap be unepp GoSutiuku, dk&(u) ῥ 
Eee ah aa ey ἐπε At μα Cal κῃ. [5Ὲ 
Oe Le ΠΕ Ld fea 
CREE See 2 ene Gees Fee i Gee ale ie τ 5 
gop f Spt ων πέρα ἀμως bay {μήν fp abg «ΓΔ ρων τ UY untiapay Sop. 9. 
L ὑπερ GaSaitivky qguyy wubyen] qup[dacgaitkye qdpunu tangas ἔρρασίς. 
wn gay fb ὑπερρ Sununny ἴς Satin shy ginpagas apphia sel 
mppayn (abu qokp Gpuneu ~Ppfunn, ἢ μωπῖν Vuinacday 
PTC OTE STE GA es SEE See γεῦσαι are ei | eee 
“εξ πα. Τὸ Saeuubh Pippo Quant Vandi, ap panty gy 11, 
qlkqu wzfuupSp: Qrupdkay χαρές wubyod. Ge as bLuyts ayy Sipe 1. 
waupluy bel wnugh tnpas: Τ᾽ γυύμξιν be unepple GaSuiiobe 
buf qo pupagkp, bphpape neumgutbly*, ἔρρηρα ῥ᾽ ἔφα. ay: τ, 
yuna gteupuiis din dutbkp, soppapy’ f Sueunny plpkp, ke Sap. 86. 
σία ajuaphh fuliupiligy yurpinfg dinpphp: Ge uyay obp ke 
purph facut dkp’ Quint [uunneday gSagkhats pphac μεν Ost gy: 4, 
uapSbp tage: Ong aubapp fp unbunth ἀρ Opuncuk Sdp. ἃ. 
SO EE δ RIE A eB EYE τσ 
BEfty gop jaye  f gapde fepbatig te dating ἔ 
yuugi (dfeta dphst depyy ἔλβωπευβ <Pypfunnufy gop 
bailey can μας ς απ ρει [ες sample peilparte ἐς πη beg pt 
“εξ πα. eh gy: τό, Sir τ56. Ὀρίδώ,ρ (σ)ωγίμωρς 


1 4)" wnw ib ppp 2 4)» ful. 
3 AL [eu h [πὲ pugad npkp Sang puta [4 ἔγεμε. 
4 AP | ee Lh “Ὡ“Π{πὲΠ pugqad πε ρέςρ᾽ yaeuncguitlyp, yacubwyp, 
yrmeuncafis- 
BY 


4 


wikia be pupaghgkp qucbuwputit wlkbayh wpupadag + πῇ 

Sunumuugh, Mpnbugh, Ybgghy bap age Sanunnuugl 

qunmunypunbugh: U wate opyy ke bp kp wif χῖ με κμνει 

bigpkp be ungay ged γήπι [μεῖνω YunpS hp be glen wyunp pl 

ἤριπε [ἀβεῖν uncpe yupglbp ucunnughyag bag ἐς μα une 

bpkluuyby - Vagus be ὑπερρῖν, (λας ἀἡλιξω ke unepp εἰ η αβ 

(- - ΤΕ υωνωνς. ὠνίων dkpay Opuncup <Prypfunnuf. uyuybu unk fl dust 

top putty φωρδωΐπι δὰ wunnutouyp: Upp, yoptad wpdullegun was 

ieee = bai) inattuny fb ny becmreicyetitceal elareetieer ara 

a Des [Bfet nbunt dkpay Gpurcuf <Prppannuf le uppurguis πρίν. 

ey pag ke bi’ χίνωρξ ἰαήν Suupuputia (Ipet fop ploy 

fupqungkinng, gopu pun Yupaga (Fbuup ς ορῖν ἱερήϊμωι apf 

“ψωΐδω, goon Bdiapunn [dbus puggep [Nui bopl 

DV oeliupunm (Bhat: μά ξα be ἀπερρὶ QoSuttiobu pag hay 

quant Srlupon (Shut bale pur qunkpr dkp Opunce 

‘Prppunns Spunliggkp aula] an Yanmuplay aiidfiin. [db 

Uyqaghuphgbip, gb dkpdkuy & wppayn [Apt kphifg* bu: 

Ure πραέων nga bp quanta fp sup gopdag 

fepluitg bk Sauna fp <Prpponnw ἔλβωπεω, wnbery quacpp 

Mpinn [Fp Sagenju Soph bepifiannpf, wn Baia sky 

“Ἐν ubupulatr bk gunfy fp “ξέρα uopa ἰς ὠρᾶωήβι ἔ 

furyuttng gfemg, qap fb buf Supg ubeakay Yap (lun 

quaue wbubay ded p diapgaph βάν ἔγας αἴδιπι. pauper [db paalje 
quip[dacguiik quauu aula” fe 4] fen gy 3» Surliage 7. 

(Vs Boqyp “Ortetine bF hg P ἔφη alg youlashy [ papha [4 νεῖν, 

gmp jg πρ guyng Es Upuiphp ayun Shank ana ἀμραξαμ ἀνάψει... 

qilepabiujt eloupne[Fhuts bo df uljuatifghp wauby blah able Sayp 

Ce la ἡ ρρωζωγι Oya wubb ἅν b[Fk fupoy & ἱὠμιππε δ᾽ 
Coes bb pupuitge γα ρα γαῖ φαίη, qapype UppaSandin: 


unfis ’ 1 \ 
ar sf Le Cee apaSbuke unpu gunqunud puph(t)u byleuy bfity 
aoe: £ fut ayunpfl quauus Shachyu bth L pupph TO ὦ he qi funcu 
aoe pe f taguwtl supacguley Lun, qb Ὡπήξαμε. gbpha[d pt guapSky 


1 .: Ueuw he wayyy {πη πε ἴτε μές ρ᾽ αι μέ, ge phipg: 


5 


περρ bhkegkgensh une pp Y πείμωμ gy. 13, Sipe 23. wsub 
Peeper quewhh Yanna’ pun acbinbagh yapryg pope’ yb 
gbpypst Gpunces [yuyu [ε dkp squyuepilp φραιεμἤ αἶμα 
fb Saeunn wdby be quithunnupy fp fannuplye[dpete plpby, 
Lk quttpuits purifier Opuncof <Prppumnuf pgacguiiby bq pu 
puigkuy uppnn tanga fulqugneguibly be gt [sk phuy dialog 
quinine [4 τωΐν, gap fp Sf mene pg ἀρ ς buy Gal, queue απ 
wihop pully νων Jamun aunanday, bo anyayy mand Gaga 
qtqu «ἴδηι, [FE υἱηρίμωαδιμ bk [46 thpgapdubhatef: Of 
apyke be une pps QoS uttibka buf quia yfauputia, ἡ ᾧ acu 
meuncguilbp ke ylunyiaphly qlyuane [μεν soap Shp be augue 
qhutbunyuipS, qXodiapnne [df ke χ{ίγαπιρί, Unga gacguiubp 
wubynde Suieuuflh <Prppuuny ἢ μων Cana day op pours 
Ἔν uzluupSp: [,yuysu be dkp ayupenfillp Stunkefy pun 
ay T Soliupenne [Phutt hs faupharhats San upuputinr (J burt 
μι εἰρη πε (Iku ayjag, opp qutSucunns, quintile quia 
yu gkuupy Mpakiy opp Εἶν. unlkule fi unc be fouphae [Δεῖ 
τε ὐμωΐν bs wunnewbuslaity gape pu pager [I undp (510) 
ane pp ᾧ πήξει ἿΝ esusugaep : 


a Ee Ephpapy 
1 mus unLpp 11 Gpne [Few 


Qaquige wokunt dE pay Ofuncof ‘Prppuuncof [dz np be fustints 
he wun τα bun wi pli Eu wil ἐγ Ρ wun Sri : 


“Gels kp dip Gpance <Pxpfunae εἴρια. §punlitou. 
Sop Epitaph bplunct wlkw(y), apyku une pp geet 
‘be 3. S4p- 23° Ge Pipl ἔγβωπεω 
Ep dig fppl bplubbg, υἱωίγω, apg apy Se ἤμρδβερ 
appt ἔγουίεψαρ : 

Cer δ Fanliatual fy ἤναι μένε [Flute Gun qllpunne [dF fet, 
Gun wily gbfuutine[Fpet, Gun. ypurSatiyyuny bine [δ εἴν, Gun 


1 ©): πα Ld bed bydbuy. 


Ge ἦς γως 
1S ure ατεπ 

E pb fuusyju, 
ilps: 


| sunfitip ie 
ὙΠ ῸΞ “- 
(Seesp)* foe 
a 
ra ae 
δι πες͵ 

[4 bruulfe 

gh pfe [unpe 
Sm pips 


““μιππε. 


wack, 
aes 
FE δ ἢ 
ἜΠΟΣ 
Lingus : 


9... 
1: 35 
Sup τό. 
1] [au- 
th: 33 
Sap 12. 


qe. 1111. 
Eppa 
1: 5» 
Sap ΤΟ. 
11}. [8ω. 
fie 30 
Supe 18. 

Ἰ 1. gyi, 
ζ 1}. 33. 

ὁ τ. 
FILS: 
Sap. 11. 
17:4, 
41 17. 
Sup 2 
{Π᾿σῴυ. 

71: 9. 

Sup. τ 

Ι 4. {1 9: 
Sop. 28. 
11 ἴδω. 
41:4. Supt. 
St. 4: Il 
he $up. 28 
he Sap. 20. 
Yq. bpp. 
#L: 5» 

Sip 5. 


ee 


Lf sup 


6 


pagan npn (pete le gSneyunybinne fs Yrupalray atog pie 
inphguns uiby yb pSague, aig sypuySumugun, wiley qopurgurs 
why yupphgure, aby ya dite μέ αν.» wig frunucophgue, 
athe gaflgun, ute Spebgur, ube pay bya, wie pleptpl gue. 
be abhg me prunfomgae : Yul apy’ εὐΐη. ἔα gyoela plane 
πρώ be bephpuenpang, ubtig begl ayy ὠρέμωρς fy uitig bg le 
XutunypS be Spliapnne [Ppt be beutyp, ἴω bgl gant 
Lphiig, witig beqke Ye μἡρμωη [Phyl fb πρωΐ ptafungy aie 
bgt. Spite Ulepaye Sunuungy, wtog begh pphtg deg deque 
παν, δ Ἵν. pgue wna (Dhunle, uty Uipkgues athe. 
odhgun, ata auibgue, uty beqle upplyb, uti. beg ἄμμες. 
mbes f ς μέγ γιπι ἤ μη» εὐ by [ηῖε quant εἴ με prasun : “|ywlu 
αἵ, qabgun χεπε μένη ΕἾν yunndinXurtiy quay gop ἤσρηω 
Uquis fb qpafnnfios Veg ate Spanfplgae ς πα αν aun 
unday fuoupy poy Soptt kplftuanpfit: “Yyusleu wily ἔμω μη gue 
[Fugunnp kpljvucnpag be kph parnpang) le αν ει εενεξειαιεαν ἧμιν. 
oug: be χα pun Yup χαρὰ μήνας ἵν bn Sayp pep 
diudsipr apybe pup dhyuapy [ε μωρίηωοιῖν dkp Spunligglay 
pep unepe μἵμρς αἡηρι εν, be ἐπι μρ ρέμα εν bylgkgensu mul. 
ΤΠ μμοβ μα}: 28, Sie 18. Ge nna φέρω, ἔλβωπειυ [νοΐ 
gue. μῖωρ tras te aks να. fd wal” flout [Bf gpl fia 
Le ykphpp: Neyke wnuphug gba Sayp be bu απ μρρίγιΓηᾶίᾳ, 
bays [yuyhe bk περῖν mula” f Soph kanya deg 
muy? πανί, quacpp dip be quay wnllngyle equine μα 
pop ft qunnupleay Fantasia bes my Fadi: ἢ μά ξὼ quads 
Uewncday faith χρη ghun χώραι [Flaite (phe ay. 19, 
Supe 15+ wubynf’ Ep[duypp (y)ughiups αν Ἵν be pupoylighp 
quckunupuilie alba apapudag. ap Sanunnuugh Ml punlugh 
fi ggh be np ag Surcunnuugh? qannuigupinbugh : 

Ver prempatp be fr din unkp χαδιρων νη! μα. wkunt 
dk pay Gpuncuf sPrppunnup qop alike Sulunuh bay pugghl 
hutiriiag bunts Mepry Opuncup pullegfit quae pp ἀγάπα με 


1 4). σύρη πριν Le gbphpucnpag, 2 4). πεμΐκαι. 
2. yocuryg. 


7 


ψαήιπΐωι, gop β΄ Soph unbkuuhuyk «αι εν ἔρμα. brunt die pry 
ῥυνεὺβ Prony le ἠπίμων ὠρωρβῖν foculyaite rpg ler 
wnne(Fhunt μερί. opp unpur dpiya le Sutumyug pig 
ἘΠ, pag kt Sodiupina (hut bunt αἴρῃ OGpunruf 
‘Papen 6 6 app be ωὑρμαήν εἴρων αν be quitS aan 
Suyapgkt: Wapu ulkikplutu utr wpgbpbuy fp ατίν πῖνε 
hf uppng wnuplhyag, apyku guy & β quite ppl shu “ξέρῃ 
Bfaneuf, gap wk uppuquilr unuphyagh fepag, [4 1} δ΄ “τα 
quppa [Ff putty ke df uphutkp qlapzuppns dbp wnuyfs 
fonguigs yb Jf wn mu Yofulrughts γίνω be qurpSloay bepg pion 
guilt qaleq, bk. uyju: (lump ἧς ghubdp, [46 unpus opi 


ὑοίμαδιπι [μι “πἽ, {,Ἷ, quiyunufrly μ ΣᾺ wf ε neuncofs 


unga: Gay & (FE Sagnft Sulunulfir Sop uunnedy, 
gapsth qanpsu tapur npybu διε είς deg php ge είν αν, 
ea ΤΣ peerage lparljuagl aiarfe les en fre 
wubyod yuywitk nkp dp, [416 μηρί bb dguhp Ἵν ἵνα νι npg, 
ayufiipl wunnuitayp, gap ke dinis {ἡ τη σφε, ὑπερρῖν ὁ Oar 
Suitibbu unyy myuyprubring gfXpnuw wulyaf,  Yuldoghybuyg 
Ung: gp: 83» Sipe τοι ULyeneb ly yuypeittfiy fp dpleuiiig 
aptfp wunm day be apap μεωμπεα με “yu hu nb εἴξρ 
say mula myuyfulrg, (IE fp apenas ong Sub ilp 
πε, bk gquyy pobugnp: (\p & πὲρ bk puplfvout dip 
IIE le a de a a Ε 
unin {μωροῦ αν ἔων ΕἿν. uquintugh Ὁ 


ΡΝ 


τος aes 

Cer betunpStugap ἰε dkp ὡρρῳ kbgkgeny μη ς αὐρίς. 
quthfit bk. Chink bugnep gapéng tage, opp dpufuns [κε dpuskpols 
wath be kg nung: ἴδ δι πίνε fp Suphuenp 
“μενα fs quaepp ἔκ quunanewhats fanpSae pee ae MED 
OGfuacub sPyppunauf ke Sopt bplfianapp.f Fantivtisl anya gfua 
pae[Phuth ke Sanunngy, πράξας fr nln μῆς εηρεω με be 
{τα ρύμοημῆν byl b gery melas gpl bw aonb be panera 


1 4). Ueuw ewer df Fy S-brusy. 2 4} he une peu. 


“Φπηπήως, 
“ἀπ frets 
ζη ingu, 
Ἱμωΐεω f 
unean ἤρα 
fee 
geng mp te 
Wetee 
“παι : 
0.4. 

ἐπ 7: 
Sup. 6 


Ute: one 
ἔλα τα ails 
Sure μερίς. 
δαδιπες. 

[4 brunt 
mE ER wee 
unustuny pf bit: 


Cufipt 
4} anit, 
“πω ke 
(qSuyu)"s 
Mires breay. 
ἜΣ 
Wel. 

#1. 16, 
Sup. τό. 

U wuts 
OSU. a: 6, 
Sap. 56. 
Nee os δ 
ahaa pearl σαι 


(|e eee 
phenyl p. 
hae 
unepp oo fe 
“ππεὸ fps 


“7: 


8 


pluy Sauna Samnunnkilp quybaubh, opp ἐξ πενβῃι χυπερρ 
«Πρανπι [δ εἶν, tu hw ἡ; Surgui bray be qulupefity be ὠρρίγω ΕἾ 
qunepe Vypets unbrunts depay Gyfumeub Prpbannuf: Τὶ μη pan 
puiifir bunts Saph & deg qoow Ἵνα β΄ Sanannw plply, 
punyu ἔμεν τανε, dae Sutbley be wnygur® onge wnay = [ἡ μαρξω be 
dinit hleghgensu?® (Jacpp ἢ] πιἤωμ f ἥνηρδω bbbgkgegst 
make 45 8) Sipe τῶ. Pag yoptunl San unnuightr ppg 
yaup, op ucbinupuikp fair uppuyne (Feat [nn δα. be 
winewth Ofuncup " pfuunaufs A pink fi wtb bhp wt “ΠΡ 
κε fuitayp: Ge χμωρᾶϊγω tay gy: 8) ζιῖβ. 86. wk. βρρίε 
bp[duyfiu ghutrunguipSagju bhfit fr ὅπερ frog be με blppfupir 
wSubcuubh gap, gs wpgbyae ghu fb ἤρα, τ Ge mak 
gl plybuyyau L(G Sauna poppe] uponfe’ dinp[d & 
Netereteth bin theppptfity le wuks Sununu b[Fk Ofunew 
‘Prppucnny b apap anunncdyy + ἰμωξη aya bu qoanannw pub fl 

fr τρώει be mya gdaypagazs Mpunnfe soaps bf: πρωΐ 
myuykes kf wala fp nbrumok, be Cpl pune [ῥανεῖ appli be 
purglubfin: Yul mlivtip, {δ ων ρχεται, ke κί ας. 
gey Ῥηρβ Swhwnula[Pbundje ς ὡρφωΐνν fb yuilSueunn 
fupu Soph, mp & unin flay aig Yorghay βρρίε queeuslialy 
aubya gua. [4 [ρίξαν ας biigph Hf.» ὁ flay? Be 
Gaps yunnwufautyf inoctay woke ySununny qyyy quep be 
Mprnne (Fp: Τ᾿ μη. hf os % puldkpgoq, qhalpy ag waliu stu, 
ful μιν, ἐξ, yunnunbe be andor quumglayug® ἔς 
gSupglaciupn is dinudbu, [BE gly kyuiul bpbpatiyy por εξ, 
mg & πἰριπωρβων ον <7 Suempurpttine fey [PL npannanyfonitfiy 
8 Phayfiy bk. Κ|4 Supgoeili pry anit keplfanyfh giupas ως. 
ype: (ap bt alktohfin 6, gape pun Ipaparar [4 branlje 


2 2). puss wyuleg toy. ἡ QQ. αὐ figs square erry ayy. 
5 Q. δέρηφεη, be! bhkgkgy, Sagey be Sagy αὐ ιαβρ. 

Ἢ Ὁ). pune ayy brgdbuy [doef pfiby ‘uncun’ Gandiggy pure. 
files αἡπωρημιή αν. ἢ να Ger pou  ερίν δι. 
δ). .6}} Ὁ 5 “ἡ αι gp, "pump ρήπι. ἑηδίκωι. 

Spier ἣν δηδίξιω!. δ pump ρυήη df beg&truye. 


9 


wlan dE pny poaplfuoupi fun uf δ περ fus wuss yeas e- ΩΣ 
dbp Ξ Γι gacguiblry uuntp wun Sn ἡ“ “πη εκ bunt LA ἡπεςἅἍ 
uneghst ἀρ [dk nf LE: 


Ἵγπεβν Depp: 
qrenpgy serge [Φίλων bk gags gSuyp ἔκ qnivacgh gt 
BE) EP SL IE Ie τ πῇ 
funnephti, be gfinke [IL gaps unnaneday Eb: Onp les. οἵ 
pho ajoyfuf gapbag qual Guiting. we unnay ἔς fr elfen 
dip μέρει: 

Oop dpfuapy be puphpout dkp Opuncu <Pyppunny {ων πΐνε, 
ΠῚ ἀρεπωρμα ape [aE pense pape β΄ Σὼρ A gulp 
witeenfr te any je: 

Usa ἐνερ dip <Pippnnu βαίεωι poy ς μξαρῆν bk. Sipe 
amwdsoquly gryg wun ας αι μἷν tngu wuk f QoS. 4. 8, 
Supe 44. aap fp Soph vannutiayl bp * be qguittha [dpb Sop 
EE SEES Gy TSE eS Ὲ Ὲ 
Apuliaquane [Phu nig ήωῃ, gb ἐξ gay ἄεϊωριιπι (Efe fy this — 
ynpdunl uoupgf unc βρη ἥν fuoup, yb uncin ble Saye 
Unpurs [pe equ tpenpts inp’ Ehuyp ἔν pap qunn wpuplp 
Buispumey ἔξει qeipupleay wneen Uyuan. (Spe dep, opp bs εὐιπέή. 
hpi wnuuyby ke ἐμ μάπιι ρα, oppyy Ue bunuputhfi pigs uit puslait 
hk |nephywhui uppyy bhbgkgy- ap ag quip plu fy unepp 
{κε ἀεματηππες εν γεν Yopde [none byng ἐκ Qual fone pp |p ἰγατιω κει 
bun «ἔμ, Spuneup <Ppfunaup pauplfuoufi : 

Coe ere ytt pupdun. feapdfp Szedupinangha fr dismay 
HEpny (25, Saupe dlp neuneghoy Ε aby fr fugorg Chink be 
qungleay & gdlg wn pep Vebupats © 9s Uae ayunp hl 
baby dep pug fp pg ζω μη bank. gh pulgeutil 
Supp dbp εἱωρη μιεεμεΐν ἔμ he «νι: Yul apy” umgyg be 
αριπωιυων & puts ων, “μη, ἔβαν “Prpunnufy yap 


1 pwn fis phpbuy, [Fach ΠΣ ‘put.’ 2 49: uu Ep. 
3 [eanaton poe dp plplruy, [each ΠΩΣ πεῖ. 


Ca 


OS. gy. ὃ 
Sop. 34: 


[κα Spine 
2 πὰ 
Lphpy. 


4:3» 4}0.7. 


ΤΟ 


ρα, πὰ uajlapph: Of πὶ ὁ fi Gly odf be 
Juoulrgun fp Say puppunu gheay, [AL pg ΕἾν vununbopkt 
EN Toe δὴ TL ΤΟ eying) atom 
sik pabtiay fp ἵμω, gh gpnbp unnaneud, [FL μαρία aniiayp 
hb dkpabiuyp pacp f tuliu, pulayt purggfi usp! ἀρ bk phubghp 
fepl quem wd, funiayuaphl {νάνι αν squnnarfplraig beg 
Seema, Ney] mec (AG: 

bel Gf bony uituag flepay gplray ζορῖν ἢ quipdleuy 
Sumi gyg yp Τρ. Vee πραγ kphapluitiy Sas 
“εν gus dfdbuing, pubayt “Ερήωσαῖν pf ipunug be μήνηαῆι 
bogpufenk he ων γι σιν" qdkphac[Fpte  dpdkuiig 
bods εὐνῆς fit, apyke C acts Vanda [Phat flak, 
be nyt: 

Con err 9’ μι fapegayp Yacune (Bhat Ungar facpuliale 
bal sappy, prueba ἤπειιωἠαήν ὠρβεῖνων aghi, ἀμ ἔσω. 
anya diaplfiiy bagfil, fagkgus fungutiph [nada gap 
yuna fplag lagu, Sbpdae unfold bpluag nga, apbae 
wilh fi wyunnhunutia Ἵνα γεν, funpshgue gajt paeogy Uynneus 
Sa [Flat ghplumg aga, pupdun [Bug (Furpun apa [d bats 
Unga te Yaplran δ q[duju up * apuunlgs uuyaui hagas: 
“Wels quay αμην pupoe[Apeta aye suipfiy Ες μὴν 
ἐ tnguith he apap qoou pop Suny: 1] aelaggunphly Spur 
dingkug wubp wnSphaye  wttSanunnw (\p unr  qllequ 
δα 15 UBT) Wes ΤΠ π᾿ 

Be ayayke ghobpod bunt dpa Gpancup Pppunaub 
gug bn Shpkacubaqug, witSauing, αὐ ματι. wing, 
wav oppliig, uncin fuppunybinng ἔξ wacin puSathuyhg, opp 
yudkiagh bat acuvitfiy be kppkp fb gpunne[d pet Syliuponner 
[Bhwits ἐς, Sumutibte be ay : 

Εν δ nbune depay Qpuncuf BL Suypiv be neunegh sh 
aga aunnuliny 6, hu bhbuga.p f ylpay gpkuy putts 
Hiuppumayatifiy gap bugate quafuuS agp dep Va be wpurp 


1 4). Su shp.’ 


42}; bunny upp pleas” 20[Fiusy 2 {μ{ ρα rua. 


ΕΠ 


quavw be ἡπρηῤ nga dplissh gifphpsu dkp <Pypunns frp 
sunny ke glppy be ujfughug πίνε Guuuiropy perpadp, k ἀμί: 
Ge ayuybe dfs guapamalgdt Uppal quSkp quay 
uyupipt qdiupgupka, qunSanybinw, quypy te qghalngguy qae~ 
unkpo le χημμυνίημω, qSanunnughuyy be quibSanunn ke 
quikibulratty wn πρὶ, Sucughp: Ge aguybe’ φίδια 
Sop bplfuucapp Sudlgue « «1 guap [gal beagle [νωρίξως. 
huis guphk: ul. apg Gpunce Suitibun qSuypit 
pep be κάψω wnuniiadpe ἀπε ρος πε αν wn uae pp aoSutibe, 
S began [Ph unlje be furtiup σε [Bleanlje Mpenfy fp alae» Ge tay 
Funinjgh ἀρ μή γεν. ft Soph wdkbulayh [OE Yay & apab pl 
ubplyb poy np Sadkguy, πράξει ft fly gplgan: Vee que 
Ruy mundane (dbus {πηι ἔρια, vunnatiayl pula wS ded ke 
bphpeg wtinuitly ἀρ ανεη αν quar lew μευ τω γεν! poquyy wilson 
tupurp he ξηράν αν dpi pep mnpudhy ayup be abep be wubye 
Uegeep qPig μὴν dale ayy op fp fipocun Sughay fait 
unpur, yfibs {0 Sogensh opens φωμπευμῖν poll pray παρα, qbis 
εἰν «ψαραΐν «Πεδ νι [df wyuputy βρέμων [df gh pifia ke 
vephel, αν; ἐδ, wyupaty tpunp te qunfr, gbos pbgb 
uppbop wyupuih guia [Fpt bk acpurfum (Fpet ap ful anges 
funnuph gue + Oyu ule nbuleay wunouiiuagyp yeye lap 
Sanne te hou yay Chink glduhapy fp peepee 
[Phutt pupluy quinpuonkp fats bunt «ρα, Gpuocof 
‘Prppumaufy [46 npaypuf pape Yard [ahaa fe qa apa 
npyke yg V ge fal apy quay be ul” apg bu 
qliapguphu be αν pon ἤωρμῳβ: Ge agughe αὐ ίγωι, 
ἥν fp nupuhacouttag bo funnfac(Fhuts lpg, dps 5 
dud” ipapdar [Pbut : 


1 ED; ewe df plpluy, [Fb plu “μεπίγη δ by. 
2 ΓΕ ἘΠΕΙΠΕ dp plplruy. 
3 4} αὐ {333 npuybe yoculwy, πευπε [δ υδρίβ. 


‘| de. 19, 
Sap. 33. 


γον gy. 3, 
ς εἴν». 35. 


(oqau ἐ“π.ὄ. 


bi pby- 
bgpu. 
#12 “0.0. 


Ue. 4:1, 
Sapp. 12. 
(ie Gores 
δ. #7) 
Sop. 22. 


1} δ. 
41:4; Sop. 3- 


12 


σεν (Shug) ἔρηρῃ: 

Gauge punuubopluy wun δέρῃ, Ὁ Prpbunnub ap 
bid ans οἷ βὲρ ke fuoub gun. poe tli fuapSppwpeip 
he phason quannacfpaiia Sop prepay Wu ku jug [dtrurg 
gebjbuyl: gopopl: fre pop - 

[ρα Eee Sprocbccng abearects ating, αὐηπιεηζιοῖν TES mete inyee οο 
bhbghgeggh ὑπερρῖ, Noqau an bppuylgput, ak gy 3, 
Sap. 1. [Jeunp Eqeeypp ὑπερρρ' δράμε αρ Yagdatit parkour 
hopap, task gapdrp ple [empluls ke pie ~PuS ate bat 
funuandutiack dkpay pq Opunca <Pipfunnna, ap Sar νει) 
ξ upuip sti pepay πρψξω bP πφωξω jadbayyip wads laps: 
1] etapa yyt Sacunnuppt beqbuy ©. «Ὁ ἐπωρηῖν Opunce 
Sort μέρα. ἃ] ὧἷν ayuaphh soap bug div utente gonfbyb 
op b lp & putt quilbiayys εὐρεῖαν ayefipt’ b[Fb bplfiae npueg 
μ 46 bephpurnparg be [PE wast aspranlicenuslyaitieng ες “γι 
bu quilklayh frog Ciusquiy apap f bhppay maby epee 
gap vac Yogau auk hugo: Vipqe μ᾽ SuwXk ye ς ορῖν 
wil ybh prepay upphypeny pulayu Sagfe ὦδε gia fy plunts 
papdn (Shuts ke dicdwth gay αὶ fuapSacpy ancpp Uma 
Sm [Ahuth: 1] fish gpumaunch inf be punuuach ghgbp 
γὰρ ἔχανε. ἀπέγωπε [4]π μήν, fuoumlge (Shwe [ε΄ upunnen [ρει 
Sia et Efecto lo en jane jen else τ eee υσοΝ 
μηρί) qlinyyar its [εν {μοι gach Epuipd frudiaul « «εὐ pepe 
pejadunl panghur: Ye ubsubray Ἱμωξωωΐναβι, apoapply ules. 
npumy Gufuaiidac [Planks ganagh wage qbphp ge dep auleyed.- 
E[FE apg ph bu [auneday, uni gb puppy wyunphh Sug 
εἰν βσβυν be ayges Plow ay. 4, Sipe 3: Upp spear 
ufuuiip (fen) ἔγβωπεω be wok gear yl nef qunnunoy wnfed, 
44 [Δ γνων, af αὐνδηπίβ, af pbpp be πα εἴων ἦν qac, pg 


Ep [Fb ashjase [voufu, "πη [Fb ash an ΧΩ qld uhwp [Fb po wn 


Je Δί. ku ns GS huapdfpy apa TLL hupd Fu, af fg ude buy fl 


J een dp plplray, [Fh pl u ‘wmpuph sh. 2 fen df by Stray. 
3 bajluyke : [πε ΠΩΣ ‘unlry df st,’ 


1 

{γηδωι πρὶ [δ γα: ΝΣ ΟΣ bun Ojfunce ἰε wuk. gpl 
B [dE ng ζωρβε {δ dupe dhayl, yyy ἐνεῖναι ἣν puri op 
byurtl ppkputigy unnnacday: Sar yuyutile gun Soidiapunany be 
ἥν pubfile, [FE nb dkp ἔλβωπειν qelinypdialje, fuoualgm— 
[Blrudje be yuna βρευΐνωπι πε [6 ἐν ανεΐξα be ifumop wea [Δ τι; Ay 
pegghun, dfitish f ἡμωυβν τὲ πε ραν" ejuoghy: Yul ape’ 
wobubuy supp age, [AE ag fowphgue πράξας ybewy ἰε 
41. μι dha putofe ifphp sh dip <Pppnany, puipdhay wala 
ela ἀπμιαεε αι}. {δ pasa Sunes de eg με μεν fe 
“ρας, wgiupulf emuteupfit be wu gins. (ipl gpl «μνιηβ 
ἐ feyps qh gpl © (FE Spl gushing pepag qannachplay & 
ων pa fr fipay dbaumg pupdght gpby, gh dp δρρξρ 
Supghe gpuph qos po: [wk glu qupdluy ἔγβωπεω. 
gpa & (Ab ng fnpdlughy qk monn’ pas “\updbray 
Se ef et τ τα τ τα fog lente ta elf oc prgyer yeaa 
μων χε απεῖνα, Ἵν {ἀρ εν ε α ρα [8 εἶνω ὦ gfoup Sp le gyre nga : 
Ge uk glu quye απεπεΐναι Ὧν ply mug, ἐκ 81 whhkuy δρήβρ 
yupgtn fuk: Quyhdal wok gi ἔγβωπιω. Κρ glu fal” 
uous. gb φρίγεω Θ᾽ nbunt wuna day pad bphfp sur 
gga [κε qua diay wu ginbraghe: “(yu hw unepp 4] neha 
dunt suiphiy ἀρὴν gurls )pl pel ἀωΐε τ. gy. 4) Sp 13. ἴχως. 
murphay quilbiouys spapdne [If uanmuituay fe parg δάμαρ ἢ 
infil wre Ausfasleush eff 


ΝΣ Ω ι gb anpy- 
Lc. 

Qjwqugu fuwphoack δ θ ul; gop pou ifapdac[dhwth wbunt 
dE pny Ofuncop ‘Pippen ΠΣ df sli. σμήνη pa 
jocuuw obunt dE pny he dph stu Ofuncop ‘Prpfounauf une : 

One wuk ΠΡ ἢ ἐ {τη )εη up ‘) sacha 4: 4: Sap: 13- Γι 
fun pley quits yh iapdac[Ffctin wun yf; f py 
bhung fp tlivth wo Funtiatrul, df : 

| υπ papdar [dha “πα για Ἢ “μη; Opuncofs jgue SE Sse 
pasphae [Fad nunfut * “ἵν wuss ἵγαα α μ ulus WIL op 


1 a. yucacpgh, 2 ‘> yuna. 


ὧς. 
Yualda Ξ 

11: 2, ς εἴν. Ite 
MYogau. 
Sal? 1: ὃ. 
Sap. 34. 


14 


wntacy qSbuplruy gapdput frp supac[Fbat hk Sbunkby χήν 
wubb γεν wlan dkpay Opuncop sPppunnup ἰκ ἐμμεῖναι ἡ 
Suunnuglyag tapas, apy be yay & ft pate uppey Ue beng 
Up, ap duns Gorqayp diaper aul. yaStbu gy: 18, 
Sap 27. Ge phew aanmunngyh uses bedi fp es wasasiayy : 
Ue phe [Sapb past bay vannutiuyh qenpée pep ξερπε δίνει 
UBM a πο EE EEG UR GALES RY Gi ὐτστος, 
fogs — ἐμὴ [ε βυΐ disrtreay fy parSuitigye be β purSustug zany bee 
wuts) Spbhg [ε χήτη Uaght ἐς ἵἴνηπεράξωι Σωρβ αὐγὴν bulacan 
fr “ἔνι. δα μηϑ ἤν ἐκ παρ ἢ [μουν η'ἢξιαρπω ἤρήβν attgand 
fun gyaplegncguibleyyy be φως με ξα wntbbyyy gla: [yu hu f 
ἐχάρισαν. ἦν ἵν dandy Sunmumunbrag gnu, favs 
{παρα wn frupi gpucky: ful dhuapg be puplfvout dhp 
Ofance Pyppuinne tafrany bu fling leary” qipapdar[dfet supp, 
np fant uypbinpnuft qs bray bp neuf inky dlp ἴχνει. que 
bin TES inary Ybrinpraufe be wk. Y σείων gy. 22) Sfp 31. 
Ge weak nk plot, plot, war vannatiany [ἵν ρίαν βαρ. 
peopl qalg ῥρρίε qynphut, ay bo aquskgh fant pay gb dp 
yuljwulrugliy Sarcannp pay qh pa kppleity qunpdghu bk Sununu 
DIED TITRE Za 

Ge dip quip ay dS quyy unepp be quinm abate wqo[du 
wuly gulbuajh dads © «ἢ prog gk brunt dk pay Qpuacop Pye 
frunnaup, gh purgpeugh f dig be puiplfwou pbgp fast dip Mequie— 
npaige wn ft uquinly qdkg yunlkbusipg spapduliang suplug 
με Εν - 

Ure Gberes ΠΠσὲρρ She Phew UWecce (erk Vee 
inmday, fasts dip pusplfucubras : 

Ge anges wut Sayp dlp he ayy: 

Ge be unbuluy sunutingh, (IE nglts opal enpip pep 
guipne[dbarh, wy lew pur ylu fuunugyg qeupar[dped pop 
ὑ flpay Sueumughjag bk mguibpnag nbwnt dhpry 
OGhuncub sPrpponnufy apyba gaye ΕΟ anuplayy ppl ste 
Apap: f Chas aye 0; Sap OF 


‘ 
“ 


I : pes ata ἔκανα buat, ; (Ὁ: ίηϊηίγω. 
3 pun dp bd buy. 


| yaefu fro[tulpapy δ 


{juqugu Sahn uhh Sop Ueuneday 


()“ hu suMUu gt p> 


Qua yuu puqacidp Jt guiijl punug bapa pagal youu Le as 
hu φυϑεμῖι ply Lidia : 


Cer Leey epbay pega ἀρ ἣν wqantiayp dé &un puaphoe 
[Phunk fp ψέμα wgubbpnugs ntuns dkpay, fants of an 
ghujl pep nig ail f suipmgays npuntiufugyne (Ibu fepacd, 
apeyke f flee fyaylung une pp | παίων Ὁ ἵν sump aubrynd. 
[AE fb pag thang fp tol wn Funtistenl dhs (\pqot gh wn 
Punbutiala wayu byt ἀρηβ ἤπιε fp bol ἐβαμᾶπε fd butt 
bunt fp dine pep ρει ply ya hp wn fphy gb φεώριως. 
eye ipunpulju pep fp upp ke fr polrybu fepry ς δὶ burgh 
ubpliil dpitish ghannupud ἐωρμεωμς κε 1] wutnyuaphl lip 
tapy be puphfoout dep dp gin he Suitugury upannk qlleg wulyad. 
Ved. gp 22) Sd 40. Be bpp Eau fr anleg fie wake gua. 
sqo[du yughp σεμναί, fr ipapdn [Ff Τ᾿ μή ξω ke nkp 
dip φρο qboapSacpgu supe wmylaphl, funtiapay wanna 
bebe] qunnachplag kg wip[Fact fay bk wgofdu' watthy : 
Ge “περρ pig Suiipushatyf [ε wnuplpwhuiif bh bpbge gy diane 
“περρί, Ybinpau, [nwgolpapg Yuldacghh. wb. gy. 5) Saljr 8, 
[ἰδ πεν plparp bk Subbghp, qb aunit ah wunutiay pple 
quinfrds gash, 09h be foignk [46 2. tyutthgk . (Yun ayo? 
“ραν be deg quip & wip[Pact ppipy kis f pat dequg: 
Oop nliiip Sulipughwupp dkqop Slik kguth ἵνη ἵν § νἤεενπ αὐῇ fb, 
apybu μαμὰ Gf αρμιπιπε [ἀβενω kf γωριωμπη πὶ [8 γε ων 
fepbuiig, gape yaywtbluga.p μάν ἤμωρπηπε (Phaidon pp 
Sageyt: 


1 4): ψωμ( πε Ἷ,, ωηο[δω. 


‘Ort. Qasr 
sth Ὁ iby: 
Usurzacig, 
[amy 

ug. 4: 28 
he Sap. 2 


16 


q yoru (\e[Fepapy- 


Oaqugu ΠΩ [Fk apa Abe pugs partie Eph begun. Ungu, 
CH EY 2) fumplhgut he fyb Laps Sere μα 7; αι ήι γε πὶ ρ : 


“Welt πρπεῖιρ pdofungh wyt Ye pupwputtl gan ἤρα dfs 
Eplpapy fb qkpyw gnu, ὄρρηρη bf ἔδρῳᾳ ζημηῃ 
enppnpy ῥάδραυ qusquitnng, ςβᾳ ἔρημα ῥ ἔδρα poeugy, 
figkpapy ἔξ tathatig, bofFulpapg’ μ᾽ ἤἔξραα diupyhuttg, 
ae[dhpape’ fb ἔβρω qpotuenpag, fliblepapg’ fb pay ψαιρς. 
Funylunug, Qrlepapy’ fb ἤξράω Vemphyag, dratpapy. ἔβας. 
founuug, (hp kpapy” f ἤρα Seis npng: Goo ayy νεῖμαι ἵν 
Gipequ dinwhh [ε {{ με ιν be Ὅν τι ἡ ρει μιήνο ρῖν qubphj ful 
kL ηςπηῖν frp Yhpkuy ἰεηρηρωξαι yquSh wn fupts εἴδῖι Σίν 
ETAL SE ASUS ea La 
quand, np aul [4 ap[d tinge ay dknutbf [ε ᾧπερ tngus ag 
ahguitf: (\p [εξ «τὲμ ad anlbinalaipog dlp pin gae|s runla ΤῈ 
pouphfuouac|d heilenpae apote p ciple iene ||: ππτ ο.- 
λα ΜΕ να neqnueueutea ἢ bash spapdac[Puk, τὸ 


(gg bl Prpfunnnup + 


Vepeqspegachlg kp fol Opunce Ppp, bpp ἀρώίως. 
thlp, wgkpuldp, Sayghkidp b. (stapled gpa unlkuugop wks 
poe(Apetg, np ἤωω pug wl Sop pa.» 7, dhfuapplu be 
puplfroulut dunt dép dkquenpage gayle fp «δ ανεῖπνε. alia 
ζ σε μὴν depned; wilh : 


1 AF Srey wag 5 Eppopy ᾿ ifnfuutnl . Epapy. : ἐ. 
2 pen df ph pluy, [Fach platy \ us pry sr.” 


= 


Qual [4- 
Qwquigu hE pup puting bt ἘΕΗΜΗΠΕΡ - 


Εἶμ meuncgls  Suypit τ μᾶπι ωδαηᾳ le Sb ρίγιβ ἤπιε σα 
δ paqad Ykpuyaputia ἰμεραμωμαΐῥ.  [Suyg skp dys 
gh phanuuuitiy auugup. gb df kphupm[Fpet pbgb ἄνα 
uppljbugy,: mun Ybpywpattl jt supp aye bee gh base 
fi puywputbopt giauu gfrpun wa pup dunuylgacguut : 
U att aye qunnXunfr buf pbif fb Gop df, gb okt bp 
fonpurghin, kphpapy’ fb Yip wgnunacg, ἦβραν ubpage 
ἡβρωφ. Eppope b ὑγρά ζαρηη) gh Sapeu bp ὑβρῦμ 
he ypenutef diapghateg, soppapy’ fb Ghygqu qgurquiiug, gb 
Sfugk pape 
ft fkepayy preuny qb prt dkpday & funuph, flgkpapy ἢ 
ἤξμαμ wgghutig be fuiieity. gp bk inpe quppupogp kt 
πρίων fauih npumjny qliapg phe. bhpapy’ ῥ γράμ wpurtg 
qb tapas ipa [Fa] ζω αὐ, wuuglyng: (bpopy’ f Yepye 
fpotunnpag. gb Unpu ghlysupupay pupa ntfily (dkpapg 
ene faery δεν qi tape kin acunt gig pe ardkGl gets 
dkpapy f ἔβρω wnuphyag, gh uapu bh péheh Sageng 
bh diupiling. Qrukpapy’ ἤρα uypulagaumg be Goda 
gbynuag. Of inpar Sappy ἔς pupdpundfin bb, be distant 
fuSunnnp ῥέει Bruits leans μέρη Spuncup Prpunnup, 
us ἴεν Eb wttopfianp uncn opflug, ke ku ΕἾν wguS be unein 
fog SutiXupogp: pul upg Yb pyapuref fe Glepyge δρίναες. 
mpag, qb Ὅρα Suthunwy qeuthgupe be glomobg bie ὡβρ Εἶν, 
ho géndiuywSa yuh, puigh ἔς (bputacpp 
Ungar Sutungang fs φάω wlegbe poruatyf : funir wyunphl 
he ειωήι [ἀβεῖιρ tagu uhep pbb. puligh yyF ufplt qua. 


tualiu ie ε sat 


τ 
D 


Sku fips 
eu πε 


gpngu. 


Stil 
[aught 
[dugquenp 
ug. fe σώυς 
wns 

us gat sls 
4: 28, 
Sp. 12. 


fp Suspusy 
usp. 


18 


( = 
pyacfa Jd νγμημη . 


Owqugu Pha πὶ [ἃ buthg CY EF ALI | Uauph jag he En a, bg lruy 


“Gale unepp Yoqau wn. kphpapg Yapth[dughuts gayle 
qu funy ku Yk puymputtfye byt supfs wulyod. gy. 11, Sop. 12, 
Ove απ ἐν ἐν ke apaphg, yb Sanhg qywnSune wybaghh, app 
quwnduni unlighh, gb apa yupdpily bk bapa ppp be qdeg 
gquuibpgfias Of ἀρ βιβρι, bh ance unmplunpp, Quip 
tbigueopp, (epywpulifl fp Gbpywputbe unuphyagh <Pppo— 
unnupy, Le shh fis qupdiahp, puthgh le fupts Jannutigy Iplepryer 
pail bb Splrgiml poeuny he nghing δ db&, [4 [ε aqui gmobbuyp 
tapas Glepgaipaif fpph qugunotbuyp upyupo [4 γεν, apog 
qunnupudh begbgp pon gapsag peplutog: με + - + ἢ 
πράξω be kp dk Opunce sPppuune Spandinyleag plunge 
wubb png βαρ πα. mul [46 bp[deiyp γι ρέει, anlelugyh te 
puprybglhp qucbinuputth uppuyn Fbuit μεῖνε Ὧν με ρεωμ δε, 
ap Swcunnuugh lpunleugh ἡ 4 Εν bk np ash ᾧ νὰ unnuugl 
quenuyupinbugh, bay: Sbuayp. of yrypp: [48 apybu 
ink pi kp qual akp une be πεῖναν ἦν Suntiapk, be gdh 
mepugoqy ful aul bh apg fh vuneuiiayp Yash, apyku fF fee 
wile gpkgue: [Sab ay flsibeyp qacp puphiyly quacin 
Sayple aby. plitiayp applop qSagpt slp, fuliuluyp lee 
yuunnudh dkp, tu lw folitonyp qaeuncgpsh ahp, le he 
fliaguiyp χήρα, qghu[dacgbhas ἔν qunwJunpye dbp, be 
fuliaguizp qakepuypppunnit dlp ke ayfo: Onp dpguapq be 
pephfvowt kp, Yhap be wyun ΕἾ, dkp wok yayutrnybu Ge 


1 pen. dh pl play: 

a Ueuninp upuslwufi Eplup 30 T— 52, wll belie 12 
Enko hod 24). 1 “πε. "μὰ LLL Jiuut d&-n't UA fy 
(hphu oey 54). Vege [doef bd phil iar Fy glory 
Had μΝ σι plrili diuut oe qyluay 7 μ gyorlup Fu, dp: he 
d 4" Dole wea wf Jdiuul Fy fu. 


=e) 


np neu [μουν ybepng μήνα uoup. te Suyite tonpur wunmuituny 
Be Uyuyku μων τς bunts lipay Spano be apery 
pug Satpuhats ἔκ ται ρ ἔμ ἠμῆ Ebbgk gat wubl, apy be f flep 
gplgup, ἰε uyd ET gupihay gplidp fb Sfola[thau Vougulpapy 
te 4 44}. Te Va paying ba unepp Sangh mul, [db 
fb Faunfitinhe ἔτι σεν, pulpntugfit mfp β΄ Gueunnng he ἀρ τι - 
fre quipaloy fp dpace ghpe fepleaitg Junie dbp for pughyage 
mak bre eg bgft witkiwukpp, Supupunp, wnljuspunueuip be 
nlp SaeuXp: tu beu Sacuifhp gapdag alpag bk acu 
guy Ep quiere gaps mln dkpay ypuneup be ὡρριμη μι 
wamphyagu bk Ep Skinkog Soph alpay  supfity yap bun 
alg gop frp, myufhph quitSununn lfpunky, quunnhbpe 
aguigunley, quipsu[t ke qaulp fp dhe squunklepp « + +) παρ, 
he kphfpywguttkp, qdlequ mputhg [ε utiuing piitsly, εἴκων, 
he [Fagan [Aft guapShy, qap mbpe dkp Spuuligyl asuleyed: 
ey eM caries Lay NI ke eS 
quay «εἴξας ἵν piblglp qeuttu ungu be wnjyp ypunu Sori 
Ephtueopp be oppensh dpudip : 
— 

Shue f Epapy 
Gaqugu Apne (Slut unlrunh μέρ, ypuncuf ppfmnanuf ke 
punplwy uppuquir mgubbpnwgh bapf, (Fb opyke 

Aj punk fib: 

beple gfenng gpuncu bh poet froppulgppt b [FE ypunen 
pagal wsubbpnw antk bk dhpnk puis ψυας ἴδιξως purigh 
ΠΥ ρα eo ee eg ree 

[πεν Aq ἔρημη) 
se gu ἤρίρ ει, ng ἀμί dha, yy GFE ng ἐσαρω βιωρβαᾳξρ; 

TEESE ECA De 
Urey “πρὶν dip ypuneu pppunne γρβα wtihunkyb funpS pegs 
ayunghl myuybe Supheenp {τι ωριεξς ει ίγμ τα we milion 


1 {ser df; fu i pfae plpbuy . 
2 Ueuutop Pelee wh troy ἐμῆπε. (fplu 56-59): apts lusufs 
db Susy ays diaut db gylunju Lh ung ff tf Fy—Lu. 


D2 


dh punaee 
[δ [εἰ ον ΝΣ 


20 


pops: Ἵμωζωιλ quiaga zfuuputia Suiphf {πα ξ, apybu quae pple 
urSuiiike op fp dlp umugae. bplpape’ quaepe Mpa [ἀβεῖν 
ghapS& deg, apy hu Uphagplaup αἰμξ.  MYannuufsaiify ban 
μβυπε be wok ghouw (lk, wht, wobD phy, ΚΕ np dg 
Sig flipumfit, ag ζωρξ wbruatbhy quppayn (fet anunadey 
A kppopy? fant umpp squnnnealais fiupilngy be μίαν 
fepyy fplbigh mpenmnachph yaumncl antky apyku jaya 2h 
rsa ay. 6, Sip. 54. Viale φυπμιω puna, lb, andl 
mull akg, bE ag berkihp qliepdi: appeay deppay TE 
wpeghp χωρβμεῖν tapas, ag mfp Yulia yurrdfion: “yur lew 
quapalrany fr αν φηπεξν wok purduflpuip be ng alfaenplray 
ff Sunfinph 56. Of slap oP Agdiupfun fipahacp & le 
phe pd ἄργιωρβα poly δι Skulp purple ha te pee 
plukglp quacpe gfput, ag dant Sanunaughjag Saph suapsh 
qua soup [ἀ{ι ἵν, gin [Aft bo um pp dingulfite ke appt 
δεν» ke ἡπε παῖ ofipha [shut wuk fur Sununnughjag be ag 
wii ucannfg, appl. +++ gh alkulefii ds qfubte quunnacusd 
hong Sunaylh qypuncu pppmnnu ἔν quacpp bhkgkgft ppp 
wnnup, ἀμυβερι, quacpp wnmpluyu: “Yur lu ng αβιηίεῖι 
qoepufun (Ff be qunpunlin [Ffet, qoaypte be furl χὰ ρἷν 
fephuiig, [ε bb βρρίε qyp hod opp Ssh ἐς βρρίε χᾶνδηαμω 
app poyutisht, bk ἀρ νιν Uypplop myuypulg gts & deg 
quien ἀναγ, pn op fib: Vg πρό ων" Stuitiight fp diupgt 
fephuity, gajudul Suph & plunplyagh glu lroldy oplrut 
glu finns SUpghpagh yucncp πείδέρηρηβ be yoru phy 
qgStoqu tag αὔδα. uppa [ε muy tage qeaph Saglenp 
fupanne gb tnpar hp[dhught gStbuyy fepbaitg ῥ᾽ yannane wd 
“άπ [ἀβεΐν, fr Sunann fr yoy fr ubp le way along purple 
gapin(Fftu, apyke unpp yoqau un ἐξα [4 ξ παν wnuSunpe 
erbs 4ι: 4. Soi 7 wubpof ἀμ δω. Voge babys pathy 
he gunuuylybag yunucatig Spuduploghp. payg ἤρ [91 μ΄ 
quits pa yuumncudsuuguna[Ifet gb diupiligy (pla [μεν 


1 ew df: ful Lphae phphay. 
2 aie b phar hud” Lpkp ppl: 


21 


win ula fos οἱξ ανμνίμων by fru ὠμμμίηπα εν δ᾽ ἀρ αν δία, [ἃ βι Ὧν ae 
μεναι ἵν fits οαιπιωίμωρξν be quibinfpu flag πεν qua fe 
be ySuitglpahyagh: Vy yuyke pain Yutiating uppog wnuph 
pag Suiph hk tagft Staqag dpigen be Suitungug queulacia 
ῥερί να yneuncity uy wquyng apap φή ων, app ag ἰναρ 
wilkole fie nprybu be une pple yorau wn mnush hope 44. 3» Slr. 1, 
woke be buy bqeuypps ag Yanpurgh jroufy pug daly beryl pug 
Sagkapy, ay beple pg «πω μια παρα, ῥρρίε nquyog b ppfaane 
ght gunlpeligh alg be ἧς ἡψιρωΐπερ, gh ng teu ἤωρμξᾷρ, va 
kup os youphp, puitigh pha diupifiwcnp kp: Upp ayay be 
bey be δυπηώῃ nga pupa & nla quia αἰ par [εν 
wntby bplpauypg ke anygay glen Farliitiahp fos waalp quaus 
ῥ gapdu pupfu yoruuiify © + «εἦ gaytdanl apa fighy be 
b[Pk by [58 gh what oe 02 lunkugfy munf gh ὠρπεῖ 
yng Butvu sk quyypiulails guia [ἀβεῖν μέρ, pul oy phil 
par [Pm gap gaynk foupliph beayfe le wanting. gb tafe bea 
inuppurglwy be ἀμ αν, gifts mpurliny χωρία Vi guybu be 
“ραν ke dk gun pune Funlitiulp tnga quibkdu ‘ong ap 
bb Soph ptuhuyatr, ful ἀρ δι ghuncofe pppunaupe fp duypar 
gyh opStm [μεν flppoduylilp > UW wn ayuagh ἀπερρῖ, 
yrSuithku, dpyoopy be μωμίημοιΐν, dkp ypunce ppfunau 
bo ὡρρωημήν unupluppl frp buf qoarunnu gacguill lily 
punyu sfrupaiis plepk fie be angay glume [ἀβεῖν yap Sb fn 
apayku yay & fb gapdu ῥρήχβν dkpay gbuacupy qb tala 
Supguibhp yacpug, ἤμην, poumgkyng, qpruSupug be dia 
taculiy intpuitg dknkyag ἢ Ὁ να μράναν ἔκ. wubp gnu, Sanus 
wp blak fupaght wably aly qayy: 
desu wquiqulbfi be ὠμξβι ayo’ inky ἤωρπη bay he 
δρηῤραμωαήν fit tala be pd ghlruy jbubfi hu dkntuy.p aga 
ψωρπεϑίνωι pbk fu: Τὶ yuybu be deg Suiph & anbly glyunne~ 
[Bp pun wnbuntt de pay Yamuply gb onpas Sauna 
fitunplughs fp ΜΕΝ} bk unyguy dhp τωι hagas ἤριπε [J fet 


ped bagu day sh pie 


1 hEu wong plpluwy. 
2 funp Ephae bydbuy (phplruy ). 


“alu 
winacwbas 
gpae[dpet 
apy bu 
ghul[d 8 


“μὴν ἤπερ 
St. #1: 9» 
ζιμ. 40 5 
OHSt.qp 1, 
Sap. 27; 
Wel. 

415. 5: 

Sep. 5s 


22 


he ghunnupluy opSta[Afet: Op opfliul blak ap Guylay 
tbat b gaqag Got gacugalg fp Sayp be fb Skye pepaiig 
he hut Yury bray bee qdlaw be grins tapas εὐἥηρ ει furgutiop 
μ΄ ὠρήνωι bt you f anpu fis, wpglop yun & ‘lia 
“ἐμαί, gb fupu ghnpt updulleugh, wauyu [dk as: pul 
Unger yannuufaatyf wnackeay aul, [FE Sap & Ἱμεϊδω erly 
hws ghauunky, dius qb quitdh frp wyplgacegh, yb dp gacgh [Fb 
quyutiug Ybpuhoce ἐμ" ἰωσάξυ {μα bun, gop 
Spunlinghurg fb pluapuiie dkp unis wugu gfompar(Fbut : Oye 
opftaly tufaugnr gah, b[Ih app ag Saeunnuugh, μια faa 
phughs ag ἤωρξ Mpnfy ke ὠρημωριήνα!, Sapely ῥ dequg 
he aqunnfy fe anquiling wunnutiayp: (\pybe dpguepg be 
puplfout dip ypunce pppunay Spunliylug punuly χα 
wubya fair angagtuapayag ἔκ. «εν ει gtompagug, | meta 
ay. 144, Sip. 6. ....2 [Bgbifp dh Ep acpi uth ley 
saypeny pepo: be bu fugly yyy fb [Aybrvenga. kag 
beg pun? Vi pg ἡμερίεώ quan pugky be χρρήῤμε lompatuhe “|ye 
npunuofuaityy be ke wk. Slip, [Big qua gays ad lew dpitiste 
περ επήαι. pplghg bk wphhg mye (Obphe wpaugl 
quynney ἐμ ἔμ αι [dba [FE ag yuk lew Ganngha gaa: 
Consett Sap & alg pt[dipgaqegy pb ΜΈ διε, δια [γι 
fufistiy quawhe bunt depay ypuncof pppamaufy ap ala 
quan sfoupatiu νιν, pul) dfrguny bu Gant μήνα yang bu αι δῆ 
shop ke pumyurg te wmaqung ες (\emnfe uy Δ guayuttbeary Saian 
yuipS le Sodiupinac [Aft bk Ghutip dkp ypunce prpunny apy 
Soph ἐρήμων πρῥν bE app ag πεν ῥα ῖν qounauny ἀμ... 
οἔμιωμαι [dfn gyre be χυξρ, ἧς ἤωρίην εἴμ le ἧς Gap he 
Ubpiktuy puncpe dial be upp npyeajt umoncday tow lew 
ng fupht dinwttpy gappayn[Fft aunndyy opybu f ψ ρὲ 
wn ρβω funpSaepyu βαρ ful atruqay fhayleag, [46 ag 


1 ΠΝ Se. 2 ung of bySbuy . 

, ‘fh εἴμ (τι κατε puting wnguledp : wuk yay byapst. 
sa Eplp unl p Eu‘ npe ζ αν quit” [μη ply a " 
[4 ., {ει ayn he ns “4 «τι» 41) 


23 
ἡ ἐκ, dinwtly f: dng fer unefif, bus hu πὸ fuspnughts Suqae 
rule l “απ ζ opt fepy Epltuarnaph fepy ufplyny 1 


a 
“pyeelu cE. 
Qwqugu AM penae [ὦ ἐπι. 


Ver Bgtapg be pamplfuour dkp ypunce ppbunny ἀμ 
qunuly quyy fp flepay Sacunnughyng be whSueunfg: pariyl 
‘Wlistubgun mppaya(Ffet unnacday muir Goecauiliagy opag 
wnbuy quunyinkpu fopkuing μήν pogwnu) ipluayf be 
Supufi. Shug fp taguitth ypuliupp bli le Sfiugts puliannacyp : 

OGpliapp wnfie qual pu peplusy ie 

: 5 unre [ὦ [πιὰ εἴ f ἤ πη εἰπε ἤ πη εἰμι» πῃ oe wuunewes 
dp guapga [Blunt b pusphfooun [Beunlje apperyste βὲρ ἀβωδ μι 
wyuSbugk gua fr ipapda[dhok Soptt alpay be poy vacpp 
flaunt Garvuti quubrugh: (\eunf gh unpar Suitashyod 
frugfin fp unepe be fr yunnneulaty pif part be alkulefiu as 
fopybguls fr pry wdkbwum pp ucuirgar[dhok gap goapskghy 
whan opgenyy pry dpudsdfgs app β΄ Funtiatialf annul 
po [81 μὴν quupustompoqy be qoacunnughujpy αἰῇ μιπίνίν, yatiacd 
δωκε ppbunnub mpgeye pod ebphpey: 
quan Sogenda pod uppod [εκ yopmge qsaghe 


“| yur hu plg 
he χεϊιω ρει 


ingus : Uj wuts ab apy ly PU Wo diup fun le pescingue dig 
“ὦ ἐγ πα: (le Swecuunmugh dh puntrugh hlggt, ἐκ ap ngh Gare 


a ἐδ anne punteugls : 


κ)ωη αι whacwtun poe [ἐν εὐ Lpls fu jf Η 


“ἢ με, lp qhufr dtby but E ΟΣ, quay ft ππι Ἢ, δι Γι π 21 
ΜΕ ΠΕΡ ac[dipapyh 3 he ΠΣ ΩΝ: wuby Ἵ “ἡ ο[ ΠῈΠΙΞ wlan 
dE pny Jfuncuf: qSuyp dE ph : 

Be ΤΕ ΕΠΕΙΣ qhup Sayp dE pits εμέ he εκ yh Pagar 


q wage ayo bry Stray be {μη gpluy - 
2 [uw [dl p[d dfs TO A [5 (fplu 66-67). 


(plum yt op 
ξιρρέμαπι 
ψέωπει. be 
8. Sup’ 
ὑπερ 
ΠΥ ΤῊΣ 
ες οἷ 
(pene 
γε 750, 
Sai. 32. 
εφιυ. 
ἴδ. 
4: 28, 
Sup. τ8. 


24 


“σι ρην dpuphputr aul quqoldu quyy fp flpay bpbfuayfit 
Susann eqyuiy bu 
Swyp nbn dkpry gpuncuf pppannuf aqui slip le fetgpldp 
"μεν quStui qghpkfaaye quays fr sup be ghp quay pa ὑπὲρ 
ῥ “ρα bphfaayp, ke μας bus qua udkiny spopdar [dbok 
AIRES ie 
] 6 “πέρ undia { ἐγαήμω prog. funting pag, gb wiigacugl gF adi 
ule pep nquyae [Bhat be leghgf pkg appyy be ἀπερρ Sogeut 
Sudbyfe le ζωήν quis fr unepp Munn [Δ εν. be Ya gleed quas pry 
Safuttbur [Phong opqayy pod upplyper ε Gow opStluay, okp 
PPh aunnend, gl plage dp ϑίεν μη πε [dbaadp βωπεωβ, opypeyy 
pu “ρῆμα: sppkay quyau diupiligy unpur be op pune opk 
qupldugh quar xuopSoph pryy ἰκ ὧδ᾽ quar fr Σιων Funlistuul 
une pp Ayunae[Pleuit, parE le lf gun le yun funleuiti yas funlifg- 
ae 
Ge aus pufdlpaghp qeutiu opprys “Ἰοηπυῤ 
apt. anugh gy. 13, Sop. τ. 


U big nqaye GE beple qayay looukfy bepl poe bene S Slr 
beol χη, Senliaphhy aypyapdal beg k agp ἤμμεπεμρίκε 
γινγαρ πε [Δ ἰρωΐά, fp pang founputolgps {πω bt inbuuitibedp 
bepk pg φαμέν opfiuljue, ayy gusta ἡ δα yuitg falas 
uy bl falrpantincin bel sfpapy βία, wy yujutul gpnughy 
apyke ke tat Ssuttbun gba: [ayg apg’ tewiy Sanunnp’ yy 
ukp, npyke bpkphute le dk& pur quan ukp &: 

Ge yh ρν 41 αν αν yoqauf quay k plunplyyt Sapgatby 
quttact bephfouyfu. [56 gbus qunlhp qaghy quiract kpbluayfu 
aye pun opfiify ἰε ig winusuyly : 

Ge aa μαῖα. quacpy. un bunupatit, 
Ι σε gy. 2, Sip 21. 

be δρρίε pguit wenepp oldu [Dpipannhy gow be qaglgue 
utbac npr gpuacu np πεν νων ky’ Spb youl bu dfs: 
he ψησίω, Gp γυώ ραν: 

(punp ply ψωπωρ [aqanng, gh ὠρδαῆβ ὠρωρξρ 


25 
gl plfuuyu oer whaewhuy pae[d but : Uqestdp Wp futrantiae 


uemguilfi, gb opStbuga.p pelg qapyby & querer Saghy 
sy lle gunbin ἐκ yur furtrwin, wh : 


Uiew qS4yp JE p fa Ep[d f wnet Al EL 
Learned QuapS wen ἘΣΤΕ ELS | untbE : 


Jug “μιἥι Af punngqurg; [az qapyfuful aye prenE- 
Ungus εἴ punky : 


« — 
ῬἸ πε fp 


Ler apybe bp ς μων ίγωᾳ fp qutintiw pep unepp aby 
ayeueo mpapeafip αὐ ἢ δ γεν wre ὙΠῸ Apenleg) 16 ane pie 
ὑφ αὐδιξωα quywgfaupuiia gargutbp bybyags wn βρῆ, 
kD apy ke unepp ρΐως μἤϊριωἠαῆι ἴε ἐπι ρ μεν ἤ εν 
ζω[ἀπεηβήξ bhegkgft nubuy fp αὐἰτωπῆιε dell ἡβαπε 
ppfonnul anh fit: 


{σά ξω be akg ungfiy Wht πίει Suiph by πρήξω fb fle 
αἷμ! lvoukguap: Of ula neuncguibfity kphpapy’ qoueuniny 
μη ph fily kppapy’ yoy glo putin εἴδει. Sushi, be angus quer pp 
Muna [μεν gunpS bf wjunghh, app bf annupleuy be dia 
tueuiig Saitgh fi χιίξηε! quhupluhats: Yupdbay aha 
pienphyegp qupn & σαπερεῆμω εἴξδιωε. yan πε [dbanlpe 
“αἵ, bails pute gion [μεν χπεωπε δὲ ke ghp[dor [Ffet, 
LAE giiupitimenp ἰε [4 qgSngkhuit, gap uncppl yoynu 
uke ἤρ[δίειώ quirky po yun mdyuginn Ife: [a μαρία 
hk dhy Suiph & χίγηω μήν fp Sau, fr yay fr ulep be yungune 
hapa (fet way [Fupg putiquifoutbop, Upldky δαμ ρα 
papain [Peunlpe, gh HY ap bgh qh df χπιφξε 46 fomphpay 
fgk faut ἤδηδωκαμ ἰε hal yufoupy apa ba φωβαοῖν.. wbw 
β gapdu, gy. ὃ, Sop. 13: 


1.80. 
ΜΞ ἢ 
Sap. το. 


26 


Cur & fap: offer Sanunmug be εἴ μασιν ἤμεήημξμ ore 
bbybyyqou {πηδιμε πρὶ (dha bo fouphar [baal apybe gb 
mngk ghofuatin [8 εἴν ς πε ἵν ὑρρῳ fouplne(Flanlp. ayia ξὰ 
κι lrg ἐῤρδγμεαρη, ςα ρα Ἔ pateteley Nebel teensy anager σα σον 
“ἐξηδιωεπρω, opp guts wn. akg Suitnkpafep πξένιωμεν. apybu 
nb dkp ypuoce pphomnu ἐμμξ. munf gh αι ἵμβωβρ πράξω 
[26 fudight glitpluttu dbq uncpp gaeguithy fants uniileyey 
qurpne[afet ἰε gliupgupfin fp ἃ ΕΊ, ἢ [ε fofruts wpunghtginuus 
πράξω ἐκ uneppl wyoynu wn. Snodiiggkg fur manne ppl ει ἐγ με, 
gi: 16, Sdp. 182 ΟΡ ἀμψυαβυβρῖν kunt ἀξρῃ ΡΑΠΕΘΕ 
popup as Sunaylh, ay μερί apafasifie b pug gpa 
putin [Planlp be opStne[Fbunlje wunnpl qubpunw uitulequig. 
EGE puSutiyp, ἔξ fuppuylinp, δ wuphunugntp, 
E[FE upp bk δε hutiasp, ig & ἀμώμων flenuus sfusqefunpalh 
μα, Te Syesegiapeg eg αὐ ple χγαισι δια a] epee fe 
PTS 


Qaqags djpunkjngh, [46 apyke wapun & aga quay ff unepp 
Munn (Bf ke [FE GPUs Ε Unga Suph fad gbus Ε πρώ 
spony gatgiai, gh inbuga.p bk Sununmuugap agus, 
apyku περὶ, dkp Yutenth χιξῳ aubpaf [FE fi πη αν 
TEED πο NAN 27:65: 

yale Fa 
WGpabkpagh duper ἔξ. aypumgehh apy geen ape 
apybu ἡ ἔγιπρπεῆιν apybe quyogaily apybu quantipl εἴδωρξε 
be hunt opyke qaputhy upilitif be qayyu ung tlt. gb unpus 

AE Sane φῇ ϑείιαν αι potelpearpaatls ηξλμιικα Te pecpeesun fear [omar ae para 

wnuk ῤρή; ει ὠεριξ, apybe yuynk pune pp un bps 

he hod fp gopdu wnephyagh uppng ἴε mpg: “\ruipdluy ghts 

ξ ἄωρα hes wyglnghh, app tvadbtuis wnieaey quecpp dinar 

[Spee gh tangas ἁμώμαν £ pany Shea: [δ τιμία, foot So [δ trail 

wn plunplujl, Sayghy f Ἱμπωνξ qupduhaits fp gfrmg be 

Sunuyby mbwnt μέρ, yfuncuf ppfunnupp [εξ ὡρρωιηιῆ 

ξάδιδρεηλν. rol wpe ρϊμηρἐωρ, Spunding® arn tenses anubsyeie 


Ξ7 


ἕν ΕἸ, ψαμᾶμ ἤπιε iti une pe aby upuspun L£ mule CaO ἀν Δα Oma Ὁ 


POTEET) MEI 81 TOIT OAC LI I HATH 
ἴω [86 μέρ quel Sphaunml yk plofg ῥϑίγαωμ a binupuitbugl 
7 τε ἐγ β Ραδν σαρ ete resend eens pay Ἰιχαηέεια! = (ppg 
ejumeaperpase anu ἴε ἀρ αβεῖ᾽ ἡμωμᾶγγαρ ἀμί ΚΕ op 
Soe, Nae τυ ας ποτ ταῦ I IN LE 
(aan bay) gay IE eye re ya) tials faire 
plbbghp απ ρρ wckinaput nbn depey ypuncuf ppfnnnufi 
fh genepp qopse unmpbhyagh ἔκ. anyyy qpunnuyupinkp εξ, 
Se TR | Re TIE π᾿ 


Crue orthe top upoub 
Veep geen ταικταπεῖς preys 
eee [pela ie (Aba lear: 
“Pusufip fp pusus αν ϑιυἤ πη εἶδ, 
ΟΠ ΡΠ 7 ΠῚ 

(pp qabq waunnewds whack: 


1 wuiunuboy [24 p[dp E pha wl bry (μίκρ᾽ 74-77). 


28 


Obifplu. _yacfe wiki gat Ε inf Jfuncu 
Fl: 5; Ae Dy πε ΠΡ, mony 
Sap. 29. Bb “{πι[υ ppfauanuf E£ wuoncuwd hb Ly4 


“popdog gy. τ, Sup 13. 
phan fe μαΐπρμπε 
πηςωΐϊήηιξη ἔκ whephan 
dbpbapgae  [ὋΕ [Δπιφίδωυ 
ἐπι μαπε spel, rime Nee εἴα Δ Επα 


ψωΐηρπε any «{ν ἐγ αι 
if ey, suhoad ebut : 


pref qoqau utho[Ft piunpne [dbus 
UF aS TL a SU Ty 
he rig uylrinpnu & εν εδαρΐ: 
[UE a nen are 

Op χε μᾶιι μην Gagan τακεε ει, 
Under Saghe ψωσ' ipl gui. 
(pe Seep gear gg 


Qhynef puts : 

ἔδλωγωα [8 qbtig & lee ἀγώρια pilunphygyts fuoufy te ἤμανεῖ ansley 

wy ungess [yu fig quewiim [tft he ἁμωώμα ἐξ 
Εἴμημ μη ἀνα, sects Tonnies ἀργά aes 

Jomuamfuttfilp le Summary quunnead dp πίγεπρβων yoy 

gop inky dkp ρρβυώνπω wuk μας αν. gy. 17, Sd. 3. Ve 


= 


bt yunrpobtiuhuts hbatip, gh Sutipght gpky dpayle Sydiupfun 
wun’ be gap wnuphglp qypunce pppwnns: Yrupdlay 
frounnfurrfilp le Sa uunuilp qypuncu pppunny + + Ὁ wpurphis, 
πράξω uneppl yoqun wn tppuylghus wub gy. 3, Sop. ἃ. 
Secu pl & apap sb βὲ μι,» apyba dinduku γεν, Ὧβ 
nuit apa: Yrupalay Suunniyp pop qeuplfooun [Fut 


okunt dE pny Jfuncuf ppfunnuf hk ns Sy EE) : —wieunnuiyp 


Suitipuhats Yui[doghhh kybgkgp, kag bb purnfip, grip 
pate Sap stat Eee Samangyp peop συξασει τ ργίησισεη 
gb Sop prepay Spunlisian quyng & gunk, ghbbquiipe ἐς 
γιίξια bruuy er: 


Γε πμό eerie wow punt ἡ Ὁ wieuiuning “με πε. [{ιε Ἵμι 


Urzelde okunt dE pry Jfuncuf ppfunnauf a Ὡ ἢ Sopt 
Ephtuenpf : 


peSatiand gphty Say πξρ bpp [ε kphpf. qb sudhbglhp 
quyy fulivuuiing ἰε gfuniting be yuyutibeghp wnquyng: [ye 
Bere, gk μεν Suh ἘΠΕ παι ρη). ἴδιαι ples fore 
wneun. {νὰ "ff opk pililk. hk ng np διωΐμω sk [lpg blab ng 
sey ag gaayp np Suttush blah ag (\pgfs & aed (\pgfit 
Ipenlfigh jeyynty:  (plapp ἀπὸ fs ἀμίαι Ὧν sfarnmusl easy, p 
ἐκ plotiucopp, bk bu Suitgaghy qabq: {περ ged [ol 
© 4bq, be neowparp ψέξει gh Sh EE be ἱιπΐμωμς apinfie- 
ik paghp Saitgfam whdutig alpng > Of por’ ol punggp &- be 
ae feels ferapeprrnz fr 


1 funy uyu by dbus [Parfit ΠΣ “top ws pris prs kh ns 
ws pupils A) a 
2 pune ἡ} ἰγηδ γα: 


30 


Ge yl ampli appr wqoldpg bunt ἀρ, sfuncup 
ιΕΡρῥυσιπωῤ ---- 

Πρ σι" bybugnp ψαμῖν Mangia [4 ὩΣ yan 
bali be ya Spy yaar bongs ἐίγωι be God mpd Gb peg fe 
phpk wn fin qaqpughujt, ke fut opypul? ale] qugunk 
qua neuf quyy μεναι Ὧν. [μου Upnaghy be εἴρων αν 
wun Saf lf wn dp : 

Cor wer Seek & Apangtin pip plunphay pun aby 
Soptt bplfiunnaph wn npg fie pep ubpkyb Vale ep 9, Sot 35. 
ear bapa h {4 plunpleay, quia preupacp > Be bekpayy’ ἐδ 
bq bk funtiupS pun Spuntiaghjyt bunts ἀέρα, ypuncub 
ppbennuf, gop plputinife uppagats κι ἔην ρει sug’ yor 
Guttbu gy. 15; Shp pele Sd. EQ, le τ LY; Sip. 28; 
leu «πω [4 πω. (\eauponp yfukt, gb Sleg be ke furtiupS npunfie, 
le ugg itr 

Deh meuneghs, lunS bd; Suuquiig, ἀμωρή begun nqgufuns, 
unuphip, wmancwduryu gin, ufipleyb adkilged ἐκ fuph ufpoq 
μεναι Ἵν. Saunnughjog: Vag & db bg wnwug by) gunna 
frou, unmpuitr, gpgnoy guplurg: “ly leu dp ἐξ envy 
bd yunn, df {Ὁ Ybyducop ko fouplpay, dp pbgb qoompeq 
be guithwulep : 

Cer BE baby qencupurp be μωρίμωροην be lft pgp ¢fubdin, 
Lo mpplgoq, be df plop ypunuukp ke 2uSpohay. dp pbgb 
fusgununne ke wpurS, JP pbgh 4π| be wun, dp {δ 
Uiuppuuyars te qohoy wypuunuag, df {Ὁ Ὧι πη αι 
Lk Sujunuh, fuguco, ffi ἐξ} yuunpoy mpuitg ἐε Guiiuarig 
dp phot kpgpatt, gpynog fb suipfu, UB pbgb qeympnoy vues 
Up jbgb Syupon le witXiuukp, df pbgb ufpoy wpsu[dyy be df 
albany βἵν ας mgboup Sp, lp bg wpurmunop le {μη ιν, 
dpi phgf Yungoy ke δα» i pbgh Yup & Gap de pbgt bore 
be Sundry fi pbgp wacky kphagt puts quilluaye Sapa fle 
df fap bybgp putt quikiayh diapg pha: Ge ayuybe 
Spundigghts Sngenify oppo] ’p Yatiate feplutig: be diate 
unepp unmphujs yogns yuttatbag qufunnits wulyad, gy. 1 
Sup 7. Of χώρα Ε beayfalangau fi uitupane pbupy” rpg he 


31 


he [unm diy αἱμπίγωβ. df gutignegt, df puphangag, dp [4 your 
dition, ft Seuphustog, df gozmpune Uy ζβερώμξρ, μωρίγμξρ, 
gut, appwp, ὑπερ, εἶπε δήμωι. 1] bpashugn. phtby κε κως, 
cnupfl” puriflr fuipparny bina [ἃ ἐγ ΐν, gb ἤωμοη pgk [ε dfuf [Fu 
phy aggdian [Hranlp fusppsny linn Feu, bk. 76 ωὔμωπωἤ πρηρεῖν 
| eT 

Npapdlay gpl ἔκ unpp anupkujh yoga an. ἐξείη [4 πα 
“γα ἔτ» FI: 35 Sop. ifs eu fl ἢ ΠΣ 7675 πρ ἔγηξυς. 
ἤπαγπωπι [ἀίγωΐ guithay pupeny gopdyy gutthny: Quon & 
Bepfatjanpaufit uliponn pbiky, εἴτι.) Gung ἀρ 65, ζ κα gusts εεαμς. 
ἤδη για, ςβερμωμξρ, neuneghse (PR [6 Ἱνανειήπη,, fi Suphastiog, 
ayy 5 “ἴμεν. lf ἔα πε οη., dpi apdulduubpe Of fe poe nasil 
bat papeap fipunlegae ploy ἔῃ. npupbiala πεῖιβηβ, πρ ἡ 
Shunquing ne [Fhutt ἔα, α ΕἿν ule layyife. ἀρ μήν genase [Flr uanlpe : 

EST le PETES IAT EGS EU) PITY SU 
Prop onppag penn ἐμπειρίαν woqnufily yop μεμα (ξ΄ wsulyaf- 
tnfiinyp fd Eegkpacp, πράξω ἔξ ku ρρβωκαπιβ. gall galg 
gh quilkingjt fugu fu? aifghp: gy, 11, Sip. 10, anmgh 
Yopth[dus. 

Usa ubuuyp tuagkibp dkp, [4 apyku wquunacfpkt qdeg 
“πα ρέει! pl nkruint Πρ, ypuncuf ppfunaup. [ε [46 Unga ng 
ete fapren τα Mecca eee pees Pe a) μύαυμίεαι; Ue ce en Sane py 
mummy, te agg 


plunplraytr Le “ρα fp tdiatel : 


“jyacfu puuts he ure 


Popp περ ἀπαὶ ary) pap pepe ς σομεῖ ἴξ πεῖ hp 
ἤδιπΐμω σι, [FE πράξω wun & gay be ἀβωξρ wn μῆνα μι ἣν 
Unppldujh wyle putigh ς γηπι [Fund ἔν [μπΐωρς πὶ (dbus, 
apybe inti ἐμ ypuneu ppfunny ς δηπι [4 {ει be. βιπἵμωμς πες. 
[Bhunlje ἡ αι φέρεν, wan une pp yoSuttibky εἰμι ἵν. Τὶ γα ξω 
he Ῥαριμη γα Sublease ajay bu ἀμαμα & guy wn. plang brash : 


32 


Ge fehytt μιν μίαν ν uiigley fr gous anthym. they p ae 
fu anEbiny wget pk platunopp ku ᾧ ἥν πε βᾳ χάθη. 
unkp ψιπεδῖν ful fb slg [εκ πευώμπερ yfik gh Skq bw bk 
ἔνπνωρς upinfe. be qinshp Suttgpumn uitduthg dhpng. gh pos 
bf paqgp & ἰε plot LP ifofupngf: diald. gy. 11, ζω}. 28. Ge 
qiiugzay Yuph ipunfulatiop watibuy fr yan μπαμίρα ἴω 
anquisuibop tk mpmmuncep mul, mf pinnplaypy junname day te 
Jfuncuk pppunuul, wqusht ἰε μήν ρει γᾶ wpdwblu ἡβὼ 
γαἴμωμαβεζεν fr ἤν βῳ. ἐπενπεικει ς ε 


U2 Spun πεν ἔχε aulry EY Et LE: 


“pupdhay plunplmju puggp gftop bk ὠέδωι ubpmfe 
Supgutbl qua [FE (\ppbuth fly qe np ἤμεθα wipdul fy 
fb fenyuttng pfeng samuel; qbis abpu apaney ἐαρᾶεω ἡ εἴα, 
Reseed Vall og esare ens fe ch oapanef ap είτε τι νι ara lean at 
fennuplrany Sonus neutron be retro 2 atl S Sse usmef 
ἐμήν fb ΜῈ) gear fb Sacthe bhkay mul «ξδιωε. ufpaf 
ἔκ mprnuufop win pungent auleymf ayunghae “μιωξα Sure 
“πα Saco gb dkp ψυβωπεα ppfmany πραρξα 
uppuryat mnuplruy pl Cununnuighh. fy dian[Fe gy. τό, Sep. 
13, & apyke f gopdu yy ὃ dpigh gSunliup 18. Ge aul 
guaun. ful gop gh ὠμξρ gbubt [FE fglil munnuufauiih 
bun ἐξ εἴοῖν wpbinpow be aul gia actu ppfunne ape βΐν wu 
uminay Ybuguiteny, bk my: Gast. gy 6, Sipe 70: Ge 
Jivtiuewte unepp wniplayt yoqnu quruibkyag wank, Yyarfs 
wilkbkgact ppfunn bk gynefo pppmnnuf unnud.  [auih 
foptu[du- gy. τι, Spr. 8. ee γάρ & β wae pp ae benupuitie 
wuleyads yoS> 44. 17, Sop. 3. ye bt gun fab tuhats luitp, 
gh Suttpght qplq dpujl Sylupfun 1 μάντι ωδ᾽ beo gap anus 
plgkp 7 Opunce sPyppunn 

Uyeybe fanunnfatpT ke Savana qugnk bk kpite 
unpub gop: munud ἔς gapgfs diguapg bk pupkfuou 
he quacpp Sagft μωρίωπη Zuapuig dkg Sa unnughyagu : 

Ge apy dis Sanunnuglape [Suph quacpp guration [ ει 


33 


fal te ful plomplayh amin χϑπερῖν fp abn βὲρ le ρβιιω 
Seyhiay wok, hea ηξηρςαεμηῖ» gale te yp fenmenpee [pet 
ee petals ny Epa] lf ens σεν ἔχανε αι ϑεεικα bes αὐ τε. pile pape εις 
fb fipay qylunst wulynd. gutimt Sop ἔς nppry be ς πα uppry 
Mprakigun mye aiiach yp font hf {ως τε [Pulp αἰ πη πάρ. 
wnbaits gap baits aun: pe ayes μἾν 2 δαῖτα. quae py une leone 
“πἰτεωπῖ, dkpay ypuncep pppunauf ἐπα 46. 74. 3, ς ει. 13. 

λυ νόθων gay ypunee ῥ᾽ παι bj Lh fp πρημωϊναῖι win. μας αἡήμξα 
ἤραξ, fe talent: ("plus gy. τ, Sol. ο.. Ge Bye γάμεπε puis 
pene Εἴ τλραπευ (fr (pnqeaphe[ th “γα fp mge ng te ll panh— 
gue GafSatiul fb Gapgatiatss 4] for gy 3, Sd 21. 
STE ELLIE ν οἰ απ ee EL ST ν 
djpunpj’ k. fury yuqo[du; putty bplfupg, be ἀνε St gy. 1, 
Sup. 50. 15) ψωηβε uitigp mkuahh qypance gh guyp un. ἅμα 
Pee ἴδε χε piles php pbolbt fh fl pers diipenbyezt- 

“)"ωμᾶ τωι wnt ang pep plonphaye Gunpphduyle ful 
tnppseyfig χώρια ας με. ke απηπι [thank fp Sncbhe bh ley 
dip bk qayafau feplruitg fun bgarghwy bk Sannunnuy ays 
ecarcrs, fr alfien ρέμία χαραμεχαειδι fo satrimastiog fl 
Puplujh wan gene fp ἄίαμω pep, fonpSpyod μωΐμε 
ke φηρδη, pgneugk goal fb flpay qguqulda dpy be aol 
tf yutinchs Sop ke 998 χϑηερΐν fr gyliagt bpkp uitzunl-yutints 
app be guts ς παρε ἕν uppay s+ ++! 

fleeef Suypls mpdulhog Ε fp ἤιε εήμειῃ, npeft jocuasppog 
ξ dkqunnpug bk. Sng uncpp ub & f upp pong Sas ann 
ghar «ρων, be ἀρ ἐν: 


HSPN TAY RELI ELI TY pL! > 


Niger 0 ΠΣ ΤΟ το 
Ποὺ Πρ προ τ Tan fe peel eae 
foul σρηβν ask qunua an apy be yncumg με, ἡἕνομαν αεδίωι 
pits te Sagh unepe [Dugan ng pulse δήμων aaa 
γα νουβή, te pig onus piowlfy fp yun fuabcuitoa yar μοί. 
antl. : 


1 (Poe L pha ΣᾺ Lypkp ἐηδ buy. 
EF 


FEEL τὸς 
gb Sop 
CTE εν: 
ghd npr 

11 πη 
BED πη 
qed Sn 
genyu AEE) 
page : 


34 


(τ μη quecpp Ve bwmpuri 

ὅλα σία gay Ghana Of μων ἦν ἔγσρη αἡμεΐν we 
SyufSutinka’ Mypunfy "fe wala: ye QofSuitivku mpg bya 
qu te wk, Ἰ νὰ ypunry Bp phe Mpunfy le gar win fir gan: 
Qannuufoaitf bo ἐγ βάσει bo aul goa. (ei woep ἀρ, εἰ; 
gl ayaa fugly & deg flay qualloays ωρρμιρ πε [ἀβεῖν. 
ho μαι [Fay bn div: Ge ῥρρίε αὔραν σαι. ἔγμαπεα, by 
fugfarqulfp pb yor attunf. be ὡς ὦ ραν Wlia kph pip ἰε bunlw 
garg Vyanacday gb pywithkyp ῥρρίε qayactf, kk qayp. ἦν 
fipay tops Ge aur days begh ghphipg ap wubp. Yat Ε 
Aegh bP ofplyb, pug ap Suki gay : 


ΕΓ & Sop- 

QheSuttadp, dbsugacguledp ke pununaplilp ppa ulbtuagop 
Suypae(Fpetg, gb apduih upuplp quae pa β Ful 
Moon [Phat app djpuakguit yuh oppyy po dpudupy : 
Ge yt belie qayzuitldp, Sayghdp bk fuigphdp (ft pty 
Sayp unepps ἡμως γώ quauu fr fouphar[abuk gppewg be aque 
ula fr ipapdac[Ibuk sapling: ἰγπρίγιώ Sayp ὑπερρ qubp 
ySagbu te gliapdfiva στρα ἀρ αν αν, diapilund [ε΄ apleunlis 
appery po μωδύβη, effigin te ς ἥμωμαν : 


‘pupihuy pu[dlygybp qenpsu wnmplyng, gy. 2, Sip 1. 

Beh Gaunuphy ἀνε πε ραν Ybinkyaunkfg bf adbil plan 
dpupuit "be dpruvfir: Ge begk yuithapdulf Srsheb ylphupy 
bh bruy ῥρρίε σωμηβή Sagidiye ἔξ bybg ιιίείν ἣν nails 
opal tunkfo: ge bplebgut tage pudutileaypp plyacp 
beple (b Spy: tuna feppatrshcp γ᾽ flpay longa: be 
pg μεν, phat Saga uppod te whut funufy yoy peyoru 
“με ἐκ Sag hl nay puppunky bogus 


7 [παι pists diuphav, Ἧ: i Sap. Q. 
bbe byt “αι πε με sual Lhu 9 ἡ πι ὦ γ Ὅνωχμ [dl 


4} 


2 να byt “11. π|}» Le Ah purl que " “πη ςα ἧδε ‘h 5 poppet 3 
b ba jid αἱ αὔτη sl ply fb patbuy "ὕ Yongt, bLinku gly bray χέρι 


35 


ἐ{ΐμι, ἐμ «πα fl 1 μππε δα, fpple quia Ὅν" gb fywtty [ 
ΓΟ, ΠΣ 4) byl | Jp yipg ke ωμξ. "roe bu (lerb 
[oP ubpkybs poy plq Qutb guy: 


Ge aga aubdp quyy uyo[du pugght πριν Sop 
Epyfuenph : 

Gelbe qaguillp, uybpulilp bk Sayghilp ἐν pots ρρβώμπα 
apap wunndry, pulay quo pf (Ffeu mui γράμ opprg prog 
ho πρίν gSogh Sop pa β uppunu ungay gb poe fumunugup 
tng. b[Ak bu ἧς bpldayg Sogh ὑπερρ ἦς bh lugh wn aby : 
Uo stl μα ufpad bplu ἡμέ, piogphdp (fb pou 
funis Sunuypg pog opp ἀρ Γ εἴ ρίαν, yaad po uncpe 
he quywuleay tiaty attuncin fununliah pryyy wbpae[dbuis wef 
ufpunu ungar ἔκ. anlEiayyh fp ply Saeumughuy Sunuyhg pg: 


Ge qupalay puldkpaghp qyoqaufita wn Ysurqunnughut, 
#1: 3, Sip. 24. 

Uys opbiph quninfupwl ἐγ εν deg ᾽ν sPrpponny ἔγβώπεω, 
“δ΄ Sueunnngl appupaugep: Vy beple bhp Sa μη ρῖι, 
de κα pug qunmnpupwlan bp: sPuitgh ulkukpfu apthp 
Uewmday [Ep'] Suemunnde [fp Ghanew Pypfonne]: Opp 
dpuitgud fb <Pppunns Mpankguyp, @Pplanne qabglay Ep: 
shp font, (Ve Aphb bts Ab [Auttiaup, ἧς δώπαρβ be ig 
wymunf, be wpaep le bs fogh qb udkbhpkut “περ dp kp’ 
Papuan Bpone: Voqu bth gap sP.pbamaup kp, περί 
Uepe Sardi, χανε ἦι fp’ punn an tinbugh «πεωπ μή ρ : 


Urey webunuputtfiy gpuncuf ppfmnaufy pune ἡπεΐμωω, 
41-3, Sup. 21. 

Be by of Mp anlage Faqafeg tari be plug Gfuncuf 
Muni’ ke μων yugoldu, putiuy bphiby Ge beth Sogeye 
Urey Viapiiacop wbupbundie βρρίε quyacbp  fEpay topar 
he guy aust yk phofig’ ap wu ne bu prt μΓυβρίμθ, peg 
Ρέη Sutleguy : 


¥ 2 


36 


“(pu hu wus “πη [δι quiyy pugg el Sogenyu opel: 


OpStbay bu Sagh Sopt bphtucapp, πράξω beytay "f Soph 
Le belay bunnep wnbwnt depay yluneub ppbumnup ybgloatiar. 
[Apt ἢ, flay udkiyyh diupifony be wpuiplep qu (Fupareng 
he πε μι Ephiarenpung be. bephpurapung be ει ει ρευνείξεπιμαι ἤ εἰναι αν 
gop pgkuje (fh ρεῖν ἁπερρνν yogau unk. “(yu hu χἪς ρίγη ΕἾ 
pega pudubkgbp fb unpp μεπιρίγιμήν ἰε εἰβιυμιιήν γα! 
qua ἦγ dp putty be mpuplp quaue Gul[dag hhh kha kgf 
appery Sop mumncdyy: Qe ay dl ἔρήβραμαιᾳ πε [Abad agli 
ubdp phi By β΄ umm ke jig qubpune εἴρων μων app ἀρ lt 
MNpunkeguit “fs pppunnu yfuncay, gb dp gacgh [48 ἡβηδ ς πα βῆ, 
dkpakugh ᾿νε ἐμαί diusifl apgl Soph bpltuenph. 
Urebet Seppe qlfen ungus te ἐωμεώ snap ἦε μῆνιν γεν μαι 
Sopit wily bi, apgegsh pupluoufi yay Fl le dpi gen be gure {μοί 
gine punlitgs Vlbe: 


[Ὁ Γηρα πε δι γι gapong wnuphyag, 4: ὃ, Sip. 26-40 1, 


“Δ οι για Stunt foul guar wn Ppybyyar bk auke Τὰ 
be pat πὶ ᾽β ἡπηδη Supunry prog δαΐμωιψωρς ap path 
υὉὈρπευωηξις of Qeunquye ayy ΕΟ ὐμενήμαι ε Ge gurl 
guuag: Ge wSunuubh vyp dp ὉΠ badqagh tkpphif Sop 
{μην αι, inpjony GlFhafqugeag ap bpp flay allay 
gutbdacg Unpune ap bhbay bp kphbpywguithy gGpocuagedhs 
Ge bp witigp hts qparpalray: be Ἱνωμίγωι ᾽ξ fans pepo αν pi[dba 
tap pliupgaphh youayh: Vek Soglt φφθ θήσω. \Purnfey 
be yuphig ν᾽ unug ψαμηπυβῆ. Be pildmgun plybyane 
μι yukp qh pofdkntap qhouyp diapgaphy be wb. Qsfuniglte 
upylop’ gap pu[dkntimgaug: pe tar unk? O fiig tarp fe 
gli gfunly, [FE ap ag wn fiapybagh pid. ἐν uquglag gipp 
pluganu byuttley prog talias Ge gyoele qeagt’ gop pu[dlatbaye 


1 ἄς S$dp. 30. 


9.7 


Bp aye Ἰνρρίε χηχίμωρ Of “μεΐημ ψωρίααι,, be feel gopny 
wnugt Yopsh fepry αὐῖοι πεν be myliyhu ag pully 
ρέμα frp: "| funttaip Sac [Bleath npr annuals pos 
Aun, qugquinnS ify Unpur 2 quumlleugh. gb punta gh php 
fhuthp tapas: Nunnuufsatif bn ἵν κι ρ ἔν Ppybeyyoufy baal 
Ugh ppl fants Gp auk Siapgaphe quyyy fants bop 
[Ak fant ayy oecponp: Geeg Piybyyo qebpat pepe 
he uhowe (fb gpnge γα φείξ actinwputibag ἵνα gO punce : 
bypk Ep [duyf qhattunyaipSyjh, bh fief ὕπερ fis, be auk bbe 
ρβυβν. USacauph gop’ GPs mpgkya μα ῥ᾽ Mpombypy : 
Be ak Φῥιβάαπυ gia GAR Saeunnu poypopad ὠρώβε. 
Seip [4 ks «ἡ μμμνανε μετ ν boon be wks Zur annul” bf & Gpunee 
‘Pypbonae (leat Cewneday: Ge Spundinghag Yugaegaiiby 
“ἔπ ἵν. be pyfia kphaplruth 'f gaept’ Phybyayan bk Ubpphufty 
he Mpntrg qua: Be ῥρρίε kybu'f gory αἡμηβ᾽ Angle ore 
bhp ipa tlpphiensl bk. Spb guuh Shunt yup διστι ἡ bag 
gPpybeyqaynu™ bey ἰεω “πανία qh tbpphuph. be pouyp pSartu 
quapsS prep περώψωπι [dba : 


Be ey, pul payhp 7 EAEIEI we bon pts tS uit. 
gy. 20, Sup. 19. 


Urey we buns {τ obwont dE pny Jfruncuf: pifunnufr {23 
“ας ἡδιπε.. 


ἴψων “γα bu uhupp “τα ἔτι. Ueepe webu putts uobunt 
dE pay Jfruncuf: ppfuunnufs E, gap σης αήδξα mul: 


be Ep Lpkhny 'h dps susp [deny weneple he ppopu thuhl_ 
pede’ acp Eft ws gush fr pun pts Ofuncop Faqaflruy furl “ὧς [ἵν 
«᾿ξ βη: Eh Ofunw he Ehug ‘h “ἤν, Lingus, μ muk ΓΙ ΩΣ 
[1χ94.“; pur alg : bere quay wows Egnyg Lingus qabnut 
he qhnqu fer: he [ulin {ἵν w yuh fpunpts bert infrufis qsfp: 
[ek gunuw Td [1γ94,» pur alg, np bu wu plrusry 
“ἔμ yp pls μ tu wn pl qaleg : Γι 4675 feet wus 
ip sbug γι tnuuw be walk. {ὑπὲρ «σὰ ΠΠ]περρ: με acdkp 


38 


Pagargu.p qdkqu [dngiuy jbgpe (εξ b[PE gacpacp πενβηβρ' 
Ὧι ΠΩ ys 


“νωμὰ γα, oe ened bald Lk binfu put quali Uy yl wo[du qseyp dE pt 
aulry = 
be “14 | une p qluuqugar [Ffct “ὦ ἐγ πα, “αι ἔξω, ἴσως 
quia [Ffct Sop fuw qua [Ffct πῃ ε πη)" he fuuquigar[Ffct 
Sagenyt opel Eh bugk f aly. 1 ΕΊ,. 
1 ary Buis op L Apso [Phat : 


Γι cl FEY [AEN Ee fupaunny abntug po [blu 
« = 
Ἰσείω [ἐ6]-ὄ 


ἐγ) ϑῥυπει apy Sopt ἐμή πρίν ΟΦ ἐγεώ ΠΟΤᾺ ΙΑ puplfuoulrus 
“ὦ ἷι “Πα: he “{ ει uta yh Sweunnughyage, op funur 
unas ys pt whuneun pubfer, “πς δι. ΥΩ ΠΡ: Sap. 20:3: 


Sanuunugh yng pipet πη μὰ Jf 


“)»ωράψεωι unuugn.p funy wnt wjinphl [4 apyku yupun 
Bp ἡῖμει ρίμαρίι ἴξ sant Achar pp apse ponte pn te ee 
(PE ἀμωραπεωἤ ἵν χει βαβεἴρ pene ἐασιωπῖ, ἐξα, jfaneuf ppp 
enuf ἔξ ἀπε μετ ερίτ ἡ ἦν woqauh gap wubb Gartiabl sn γηνέν.. 
papa inpln[Flaw, gy: 55» 4}. 22. O ἄνα ψωηψωημή oepacp 
flpuy df Pifghy bk hgapy jbupgbe dkquig omupug b wy: 
Cur ke puphfvou k. digiapy dkp ypunce mpybybay aul. df 
“παρ quppne[dfet auttg ke df wiphutp qiiupgupfunw dlp 
conaof funqug: [Su ajay be ups ἐς pinpl yay be. fofsuitiung 
πα qb afuuiine (Ffetu wnt wylopfh. puitgh dk& ξ ως ἔξ 
bphpeq qaknu giby "fb fbpay aytiypubwg be Ygape pboby 
diquig omupuigh ἔξ wyple anya ἀμώμων & agus dk’ gane— 
ne [μευ Guylruy dkqug ὕπαρ ng ζωηηρηΐ apy ag & 


39 


anne αν δ᾽ μ( Εν Spuntiit as ρρβαιπωβ planplyase be ἐς ρα [δωΐῖν. 
pubett be wnuplyuhut unepp Κη ηεηΐνν “yur lu ἱήϊεως. 
gap op μαΐω δ χηρδὼ hf μήνα ψρή sbi dkpay “Yu be 
flunphay wnuphyagt uppag, gap mula bf pas alragyuny bunk 
yfuncuk be dig ucwthelgf qap une ppl yoqaue qunqunnugeng 
41: 1, Sap 11 ak : Qacguibdl ab Eqeupp qui fun push, 
ap «ε ἐγιπιμρεινίγψωι. yuki. gh ag & pon ding diapers: 
Ὑλωΐημ kong buf dapper anf be ig mun πεακρξ. ay |: 
saya [νὰν Gpuncup <Pypunnup: [WYopti[da gy: 155 
ζει. Bethe aye 3, Soir 4.) 

Of aS pun aya pati kputibayph aybaphl pufajpad β 
ppbunnuby ke pppann ppl pge dkp ξωρ ῥ᾽ Soph αμβεϊναν ἤω 
ρει fap Spunliyglrurg μέντα fs fin[Abaw: Ge dinar gla 
Gfvace foul gun. pry touat be ankles nncun. fred | allan) fr 
fuutone [Afr gl phfite k ghphpp. πράξω wnuplag gba Suyp be 
feu winnpll qdleg™ τ “Yyur ew dupa gy. 16, Spe 15+ Viger be 
Ἵνα nk pit dep pppennau plunpl gan 'f Soph be ban qziapSu Soft 
kpifimeapp, qap ἀξ πηι. gy 15. Sas isto bol gap 
pienplgfy be upplyb bf pug ap Sathgue adh fol baby 4{1{ 
[Pb fbpay bapa ke βρίωε πεν Ah [Futiaung qunndkegh : 
Ge beet Mek gan Gpunce by fagdaqul ff ory witunfe be 
usar pagar talia kph pip be bunbu qgaagh: Vunedey yb 
fywtky βρρίε quypactp, ke quyp (fb fipay tap: Ge ως αὶ 
aay δράμῃ. op aubp. Yi & (park bP obphyly phe oe 
Sutbgay: ἐρήμων gy. 10, Sipe 10, be πε ήαω pyr 3) Φ 4}. 22, 
saSuil. aye 1, Sip 832: Be χαμμἷν puldkpayhp ᾽ν vacpe 
ghee ap ἵμωβν punple gue ypuncu "fb Soph ἴε wnupluy pl ἢ 
tfiatok :  (\eunfp ke ane ayloppl aug & plunphy fabeaiiag 
be wnyu bayfalayaung: Upp ἄμωμα & wnaSbape file hulu 
pik qa Sleqa[Blanle be [μαϊμωρς πὶ [Pbeusdje (Ble σε ν᾽ tos 
gbiliannne (Aft Yumuplay, qukp op & φπεία ει πεῖν, 
glans bline {4 β εἴν» gS kqa [4 fty ἰωπΐναρς τι [afl qappapoe~ 
μεν, quip [Fpet, qaqQufansae fet be χρωήμωμιπίγηδιπε. 
[fet : 

“yn ke σε apghop γδπι Fhaya [Ff qoanleh pm [Aft 


aH: 28, 
Sip. 18. 
Wu[se- 
14: 3: 
ζεῖ. 17: 
Werle. 
tie 
Sop 11: 
Veh 41:3; 
Sapte 22.5 
Sadjv 18. 
Urn [de. 
4: 3: 
Sadr τό. 


tie 
Sap ite 


40 


qhesnune apne (Epes 76 πίε αν μὴ brine [8 εν, χει ριεπευυβ μι [bt 
qalda[Ffet hk gpuquipanfupm [ἀβεΐνω ἴε quay unlbkbays μεωμένς. 
ξπρδηε [ῥεῖν ke qgypac tls Caiighpd {μη πηϊιπιωΐια ρ εἰ χες τιν myer 
ξ΄ πευπεη shir πρᾶμα βηϊαῆπι, te πα [5 Sarpy bay 
fupyuny beni Sud. ful [BE ng neigh dupe uy qh 
i τὴς ΡΊΠΙ σε [ΒΡ τον ae) er oti I Pe rpg 
fiafeaiiong qatau frplaiig νην “fp qyleqy apes np mb ΡΝ 
BYE λυ aan eaten Το pace pe eye 
qq satky άπ dkp ᾿ξ flepuyy αρϊεῳβωίωίν be al ἐν 
ἤσπρΈ [ε μιωυϊιωή βᾳ, dequg Uapus nye ἰδ βαρ [ε purpl four 
dep ypuneu χα περαισπε μῆς gdeg wubjaf. (FE χαπε Μηρπερ 
δ guip εἴρινἤανῃ αἰἥνεηβν np guts un dbg ς αἡωρίερᾶβειρ πξίνωριᾳ 
μιν thppy bh quypp yunfigunnhoyp, ἔκ uypu: 

Use ubuuyp ufplybp dip, [426 apyku περ wipeglyh 
quyyypupu. ᾶίπα sqiky of Μέρα «ὐνηβυίγαρ. ayufiph 
unin diapguipklg, ἤϊεηδωι πρώ, uibSbugquibgfg, ypoliapuig te 
ayo: Yruipdlray γα wmoneuduulp fyfuadiuigy ἔκ ἢ ἐκείναις. 
ylinugy ἧς & yuyu galan dkp fugfaqnhp polyp ψέμα 
αἰξίν ἵν, gap uneppl yogau ἦν Gutbata fp ἀμωιαπεῤμξ. 
ἀγα αν, win infunmity mula, gh ρα Ε bagpultauouf 
wip pfby bk ayy. be yuh μη ρέει ἵν age agus 
k ulktuunyh fagdishg atiapann be unepp begbgf tos lew fanpury ben 
be dpundfieny gap plunplup fp Soph anlkbusfayl wub. bobgacp 
ἔναρα ξεν fppl god ἐκ dfuulfen npuyku ququnfy be ayy: 

Stukp k puplylu piulghp, gb δ gagh [4 ς ωἴμωπ εμῇ 
pbobp ayy uncpp Yatiatungy, tw ἔς Say alkbulapoy unugh 
diy qeuapSu fp unepp μωρίηημιουπι (Phunk apgeage pep 
ufiphyy: ke putlaygh qusu Sageng dkpng wn fp dutta shy 
qayunfufs [uuplpayyutse wyzufiipt ganz, que urge, qeliapep ssa 
ugar, L “πα ἤθη fe, “οἵη οἡ “αὐ ει! ἡ 11) yguunufuoun, 
qlulrghunnula, qeupapuiia, gSaySypse χήρωπηγα,, ἡβήως 
gleuyu, μη πα ας kun, {πηι με ιν ἡ ἤτα ἐπ νιν ξ ραν quis agen 
quik wyutroqu, δι.) qypkpeey qe βπαμ μα, οθμμνενν, yur 
tacuncilry ἡ ναίων. ἡ ϑ νομί αν, quinannylyy, guts ueuitia, 
“ἰδερίνανν ρων, quilngapSucuSe, quitpapmneutin ylephy bli 


41 


quiguSu; gepsuenpu, quit saps ὦν qvhpey, quacindiasyu; qufrus— 
nauk pw, quip [Fas παν, gh bgséuenpu, qqnpuuinnyuy qhepuuk pu, 
qulbunnzu, “πιο ὦ surplus, ἡ 4 τη unustlfr ures, qua fre pase 
‘hf gfunne[Ffct Wodiupunne [Fb with ns ζ με fh, npuy bu pugs ute 
pula ih wasp γι uh wits EhEqgkoft apa fp Jeg: qua ply frufruts 
JE és “ημᾶπε [8 burp plinply. apulu he {πε {εἶ EhEqgbgenyu 
§ pusdiny bug ‘hb flip uubyod [4 “πε ἐἔγπερ ‘fh sup > uljurg 
τ ye 

Ure alipy φρίωμήν quyunupl’ ψώρα & kg. χᾶίγπω dep 
eeihy ἦν “ίγμαι, αρϊμηβυίγωρ be gy fib dequgh wasbaghl ἤρα 
ἐμ. ΠΡ ΠΣ : Yup dlrs wulrilp ui usps “πη ἔγορ quit 
furl” bola £ us purty frosfs np, app 'h taguatl Jun husulrasy 
fa Seuduplray & : Cy any hu apy wh p bs wyuupfuf us JIT; 
he εἰμ wun ἡη gurgl way Ek wb ε q2uapSu S opts Epijur 
menypfr apa Eu dinuls pugs atpwahwat he wnw pb yu hut ἀπε pp 
Sap. 59. Be uoynu Ep funtiuhfg “τη ἐμ εἰ ων un γι ἥιπυξ 2 
{|papdbasy 71: 9. Sain I gap “ας ped Yo zau un ἔγεινε fib pgfan 
unpub lop μ “τ eas Ts εἴτ εἴμ wi gush ἔν punughs Qfunt, divine αἶγας 
““π. piss μεμα yusiy brunt’ [uty plug ‘h biditk [Aacfuldu ‘h os NY 
Was Treas ry ees 1S esse. ΠΣ ful fuss us yur, funy ἔπι α “δὴ ἢ ybprcuae 
Lee ypu: Us intruwy p tuglhjbp [of αἴνει ἵν vonnufr he ΧΗ, 
“9 παι [ἵν unepp he ΣΝ ‘h pu pugs ab paljacif he wari pir pus— 
ἅμ jhbwy fgtt pphuunfie : 

(" uu gue palpi auk E putt ft vac ppl moun gb περ 

G 


42 
wrwekjwugft dkyp, why wauebpmughh be sunpSp. Yrsupdleay 
yerekphye] wu. gh dig quay Ef pple qnquy fooukf, 
bee. pops Sunliuphh, ayy yoptunl by ayp ἤωμπωμίγωρ, 
qoqeyn [thus “ff pang publgh: [_yoyku ufplybp, [teayben 
δέω bk diapyhuing gyoply payg os Ε bbw yunly be hateginly : 
Ueyganp ἐς dkp qopfumhu quyy nbn ἀμ,» op fants dep 
de qunnpuge mub Junie wibonal πρηη ἵν gap bbb wae. εἰ τῆν 
wuk, ayy dkqu ylplfiew bk unui gh pay shP ὠμόν hash 
orth ew “ὑἱ spe bpple gdp ᾿ξ ψωμό ἤϊε png: Ge Say 
tapas φίδι ail bey quywputingucts Sandpacplynd wuk, gb 
aye opel fl denbuy Ep ἴε bing, ἤπρπειίγω! Ep ἔξ παν: 
ke χωρᾶϊωι Ipljok dksun oppo le auk, Sulp guanidine Sait 
qepey, Ἐ “πέρ ιϊιαιαμήηβν fp alee tapes te ucnpl,p pte 
4“ qupupul, gb age apyf Po “έπίγωι bp ke thong, 
ἤπμπευΐιμ Ep gies pp ay tl yfilinguip qarp χα 
hunt dkpay ke uppuryguts wnuphyagh, yap ἀπε αν fSnutoph 
fSapkgfia deg [ε΄ wqunancfpuitoph wyunnncfplgfits αὐιπξῆναι ἣν 
Sununnughjagu: “Ywupdhay bhybugn.p ᾿ξ fupgu fopunnnyty, 
gage Tous sseieguer [EE ayapan ξ΄ alpen jfk y wis ἐς ἥπερ βῆ, 
τ ἐμ ρου οτος ὉΠ ρου [ek Pe τς 
ayn [4 νων, ἐπα βυΐι πωπε (Phat, forpepary ἔγεπε [ἐν ιΐν, ἀπ ίως. 
phn (Phu, wnufunpyn[thuts [ες μηρί μι (dba, ap unpus 
wilktk plu lp binge gaps be bk ἧς bb unpuy JES hun! 
fobp (6 flpay Apdkaiig, ay be Sup[F Samp, npybu 
ἔκ. μωρίημιοιῖν dkp ypunee quonnchiplag ἀρμενη μήν μΐνεη μέν παῖ, 
μές. gad. gy. 26, Sip. 26. Up pone ag ρναρξω, ayy op 
ἐδ, Ep aby legky hh pple gl ρεαμ pie te παικαι Pirnyy toe 
quyuuucnph, ἔς. αὐ τε [yuyke ῥγίνωδπι (Eft dh ξ, πρώρξω 
“περ dep ς ως ξ μη πᾷ, «Π[δεσω gy. 16, Sip. 15, gop 
funmnutiny ἀπ, χβρέμιωϊυπι (Spectr ωμξήναι ἅν. ωπμερίη πη 
fepag, wyguybu εἴίδω. gy. 18, Sep. 18, wk he ἔκ ony 
qtunnuplruy ηῇ γἐμευΐιπε [ἀβενω ἐμμεῖναι ἅν pluapkyagt fepag. 
Udit wubb ἅδη, gap qeupghp ψύρίρρ δηξοῥ fanny try, 
υϑράῤνω hk qap ὠρδωΐῥᾳερ ερήρῥ bgbgp ὡρδωζδω ghrp 
{μεν “Yur ku yoSuit, gy. 20, ζεῖ}. 23, GFE nedkp [dayaegarp 


43 
gdequ, [Fagkuy pbgp tngn bk GFE gaepap mifghp’ Gaybay 
Leg: 

Uer syuyke {8 μωιβίρ, ἐξ yayip bk {46 Supe 
δ΄ Fant updulditin feplraitg wukt. ἐ{4.6 ἤω[ἄπεηβήπαρ 
κι ἐξ bupulmgaup, EFL fappunghinp be ΕΔ purSuitiuypts 
tinge wubh, pun Funfiiiwhp, ἴε be fupy pew pur uituyyusbjaits 
Pe έσεον [el Bexar μη κεεί Foal” pole postllctennyglaaleercat hopes [ ΕΣ 
TEE | ioe 

eer ep aati prn oat Tem pica esr Τα ΕἾ gall (pitch 
fiafeuiin[Fbuih bong εἴδδ' ἔμ fnpp. acum Saght uncer 
dp Sp op £9 0h ψίραμ μδηςὗνπερ παρέ πρὶν bk apap 
gunus ply Sattpuleis be anepkpuhuts ἤὠ[ἄπεηβήξ une pp 
OOS IS TTD SEE σευ  ΠΈΞΤΙΣ, TIGRIS 22h) earn 
nfutine[dfetu bk qanpdu tages dfigin be yun kun be yun funtrusi 
yuefunbifg. {ΙΕ : 


1 μα διειῖ [upannnze 3 


“πε wuinfSutfu : 
quio[du GENE! mie Euypulaunuts (wubyndf ) ayyuup lu —_ 
ἤμωπ αν ξανμ πε. [Fb ust Sageng dE png. Uz. 


Ger gb peep opp qandip quam ath; alg Sodffe. pay wpytrop 
MSue pliine[Pbundje le. uppad: 
G2 


44 


pet ingu up lau fr wroctrusy wut “{1Π. ἐπι plu 
“π κι πὶ “πα, Jfuncuf ppfunauf --- 
Cy Seyp pase ἔα dE ps, ql quill; ley yl ζ μεν εἴδη ἔν νης 
Pyy wk pnt [db αὐ. fuser αἶγα, fulp mune δ πε : 
[44 ku εὐ, es pre Lu pum wg yu «Πα he ἜπεηρΡ {τα παπι [με : 


Ge anya μωρέ ἵν οἶα, qeatie* when αἴρῃ ριωρίρ.. 
[μουβΐ, Suipguitby pu[dhpgogs myuuybu: 1} ἴδω. gy: 20, 
Safe 23. 

Uegbop dupa μι, ρων qap be pilighjng be 
bgt gdypn (ft pL lyaaky gap bu” Mpunkyoy bP: Be 
Uap wqunnuufauiif mactay yodup Guntia ἔκ ufpaf aul 
gunuvbapeh. Uyn Saye unepp yb Suna pay gud 
wnbacd qquilu, qeuthpu, qeupguputiu, ἡίμειι {μεν βῆμα, ἡ ἔσει su, 
qoupocuduy Gulrgar[Ffetu [χεῖμα ἵν prapdar [dfs as pba 
Ste gap aby ke μωρίν [μουν dig lk pig atipuljate ἔκ ἐπα μι ρίρ.. 
potas ὠπερρ bi begkgfiu ὧπ βὰν αὐνᾶβμω μερίμνῃ, be upped 
pibapats goons: UL yeqhe bbe wbepdas Sumy jfeneul 
ppfunnup desu βρη bk yodup ἔμ εἴδωε. quillilukuriu quyunuh 
tntned γωνδιδει pl ἀπ ες fp ται fuSnewt flay. (lke: 

Ge age nbph ugh amine ἐμπιυϑβ pep ke ipl μωχιίεαν 
Λ΄ Yep ωβοκηΐν le uluuirfigh wvby ‘ou quince Sap 
h πρηῷῳ [κα ςπφιηΐν ὡρρημ, ht: 


Ge anya νιν ἔξ νη ο[δω wnbunt dkpry ypuncup pppunaub - 

Ge yhuny uhuutifgh pu[dtntaey quacpp aebunpuslit, 
1} 4 ω..... 1s dfs gS. 16: 

Ur κω gopiag αι. 6, dpugh σῷ 4}. 8. 


be wu εἴ “μην ν᾽ gapong ΥΩ 1, df ste asap. 5: yp 
dip aps ἐκ wyjte 


I Ὁ poctu. 2 4. bu 


= 


19 

“γλωρά ρει, webinupats 1} [4 ὦ. gy: 3» Ugh ας εἶμ. 17. 

“(yw hu gaping gy. 13, Sip. dftugh g 6. 

Ge δα ἀμυπηβή bypalayaits Gash hotel wn upts 
he βρέμων ιν ἐν {τωι gifght gibnu pepbuieg f ἤρα puldlp- 
gayliy ful bypulayavt wna quepp anbuupuiti “fp ἄϊγπω 
frp be παρ fp dba p[Plpgagh, kway Sapguie quibach 
tapes Sheqae [Pb unlje ke faritapS oe [Bhandje (EO fry Ε atin pry 
npplal fol ὡβρμι: Ge tapas aqunnuufsutif innckay aul, 
[46 & uttntt Sunuyf pa ylenpau: pul ἐπι ρέει Ἵν dinfubugl 
gutta apf pun ἐμ ἐγωνι είν, be yl spnfulyyay χα 
βΐνηρπηβίν γαρ νειν ἀντι, αἰ γίμειΐιπι [ἀβεῖν «τωι ayuybe: 
Ue ρέχ ῥχίμωδπι (Ff Gungbyyy be ὠρᾶαιἤ δ, χηρηβω 
Supp huis ν᾽ ghphfiua kof ψρρήρβ, dinfdue gy. 18) Salje- τδ, 
Ἐν". yf: 23, Sp 23. 

Uew ἀνα πα αὐ γίναδιπι [ἀβεΐνω ful be fol qapen & pit[dbn— 
bay ἡσπερρ acbinwpaiis: (Ὁ ΠΡ pu[dhpglatie unghy Saph 
Lk hu pi[thotay qucbuwpwth Stig but, ach. gy. 2, Sop. 13) 
ke hin[dw. 41. 2: Sap. dpish g 13: 

beh ghar po[dhpgliah uppay wntinuputrfir qaeh. bk guy 
uy inkegbit, gap Spl auuhp kpghfu χέρα pepbutig, yup 
ξ kuypuhaynufi, tap plunphyayt, ῥ᾽ γέννα, fi afratrunybinug be 
μῆνες ἵν, Fayafogagh ρα ἐν qipunp ῥ᾽ ρωρᾶπεΐνω wunm day 
he ἔρήξρ [νωηώωηπι[ἀμεῖν, ᾿βιωμημή Sarre [Ff : 


O wajupuiie EEE TEL E wuts, be as yucky b Se 


requenp Fugucapag, πξρ be wpurpag wnlblugy bart 
ἤσαν, op wpuphyp qhafouSayph dep of Saqay be qrufauniligypth 
dip ἢ ἤπηξ ἵπρω. ful Unge sSutbgnpdtluy py veep) 
yquinacbpubpy yunnpl gus yuunpatbopt puiumphe fl: Up 
gltaypode py wunnmde[dhuig wpaplp quap diapgh ypunce, 
apy bu ἔκ uneppl yoynu wuk. εἴπω begh dius he diapy md 
dpha[Fpu: Uyuyku le... ... ‘ptf gfunee wes bay 


1 [ITS 2 Ephac papluy. 


Wee. 

ΠΣ 2» 

Sap. 11. 

η hu. 4: 6, 
Supp. τὰ. 


46 


ἡ δία [ει δ wanna kput pa bk. yurgsufalsug qayarfo 76 ulna 
hagbt pry qop [πρὶ dpudfit apgfype uppkybt uuk, ySte gy 15, 
Sp. 10, BFE μως fg hp quunane βρῆ ful; ἤν ϑῇρ 'f ube fob 
api ke bw quannacfpatiy Sop fly ayueStegf [ε qu ubp 
tapas: Τ᾿ γυναι be μα πε fat dip ρρῥενεπαν yurS bring 7X εἴδω με pas 
tug he quwnncfpatiag.pyyy “περι [δ γαήνη be bybg qeympuny dep 
be μα αι. ἐξ pk χορ ἔνι [ἀβεῖνω uthfuggut: Ge ἀρ, 4. bpbu 
wihbuy aqua skip pugplidp bk Sayghtp "fp ph, pulay χώηίως. 
gute dp puplfvoune [Bbuadje dpudifg pa lk dp γύρη me [dleuilje 
une pe Mp (Bath tapi be. ἢ νἥνενεναπα. squannewluity «Ππωρ ὅδ 
ke ὠρίωδ, bnpft ἴε unepp allonuiibyb sup sepaiing Lappe 
“ππίμ ua qelapSu pry unepp, yop wy Fl bay & he βήμερε 
δ ρμξν qsuapSu pa unpp βγίμωϊπι (Su bk ple ufplyb 
βρη pod quupby gap mule gh mp teu figll™ (usuq) 
be «ψωρανοϊιίειμἷν fl leq bgp : 


Ge aga: figfiatiagt wantin yalau fepkaing glin ke ἡ, flip 
pupalay qeayachu Satigkpd kuypulayaunet, wubt quye 
wqo[du dpupuil “fy flpuy inp plunplyayl wgany bu ε--- 

Ybutip ko anguckt, ἰδ παρα be puphfoou. pe ports 
kpljtiuneopag be kph pannpag ἔκ. μιεήμηαρενείεενιει ἢ είναι, ponds 
Lpljupgy. δήμωι ας, Sydiapunne (that [- bleuthp “ply aeqaue 
yu Sanunughyag, gb por fununugap atbuncin pailipeg pap’ 
[56 np gay wn fa ἦν foueup Uf ifwagh be Gaal gh hbase 
mn fru ag Suibhg ἐὠριπμιρι. 

Cee gh vay ap Mynalgan guia pa umpp be plunphgae 
Sop Sage pod opp be ἀρ δαΓ υμμωωΐγωι tay aitumein 
frnualisty pry tnnuiparp δ pagaphy gkpaumayed dfiigl. 
qultimga.p gopm [Aft ν᾽ pupdutg: Vy ἀρ bpbu 
wiry buy an mow pry ρα υβρπη, pant wpununop wptpulidp, 
Sayghilp be. frig phil fp phi unuplui 'f uu q2tapSa Sop pry 
qh bbw yurpyaplugk gSaghs ylfn be qliapdfiy unpay te 
yujsunugniugh quar yuulkinje sup funpSpynge be ππόρ 'f 
ulin ySagh pa gop wnky'b Soph glut γηρη μι, gopuge 
quia ἔκ pugs kp qin unpu un fe yflisioay gaps be 


47 


“πε “ἔμεν su upp A δία αἰ pr ψα 4 be gun kn 
he pune frnbratin yurfulifg, UA: : 


be wus try Ls buy fruljaugnuts fpf urls pcrl ἡ αι γ {ἘΠ tap 
punpl past wulryn “μαι lu, Usa if sacl ol wnt dE pay 
Jfuncof ppfunnup parggh qupunu Py af ubplyb app lrul 
ps μ qgopungacug ἔς χρίγῃ, 'h gapdu Py Ut : 

Ge τ“ ἐμ puldk paghp quae pp fonuuacii Spb δατι ἔα bunt 
{πῃ ἰμιπιμαπ gue fut Jluacuf- 


[πῆρε 71: τ. τ| ζῆν 26 

Ge μὸν, fegkpopgf anmplgun Quppbky Spt ual 
ιν δ, Of paqup dp Quybjbrugeng, apa” ula bp 
“ωγωρε4, Ve frye [μουξφίγωᾳ wnty apd ata bp 
Galak fe wathh Yun [Ape be attacts ἤπιε υψν uppal: Ge 
δήμωι wn tous’ Spb nubs wok. (\epuila plop php playpen, She 
pp plg: Ge tu pig pati Junaflegaes ke funpS hp ply dfn’ 
[PL tpaypup rug [98 aqrasia agus Ge mul xls Spb guile 
WE Lphishe Ὁ) ὥρμων gh παρ ZuapSu gUanmdy: Be 
wSa peuple bk Sighu apg bk qagbugky qua apa 
Gunes “yu δηΐων dhs, ke ἤμην Pepsphypyt Gaskugh. 
be inurgh tilia Shp Vynncnd χα παν Qrue[df Sop tapas 
he [Pugunnphugh 'f nutty Guhafeny ᾽ν gucpnbaiia Ge 
[Puguenpne [Phair bays fufudaie df bgp > Ge ub ur 
plu gS ple gumbo. (Ὁ βρη phigh (Vk ayy petigh quyp 
bs χβωξιγι  Yannuufautip bun Splunk be ake gas 
gb Voepe bf bugk δ phy ke qopa [fet [Supdpkyyls 
Safuitf pbgb fb bea por patigh be np Svuiblyagh & 'p ple 
uaepp by ke ἢ μην Τ᾿ δ, yoskughs Ge ase Ὀρηβυωριᾳα 
νη ᾳ εἰν pr’ ἴε tous χὴν & of δίεμπι [dbus pepo be aye 
fi ghpapy ulpu k tapas ap alae Yaglgleay be Of as 
whwpang wn gVwnn dy μείνας ἵν pairs Ge wuk Pappa: 
Αἰ ζει βῆ ἤαν νη μιν Slant, bybgh (ud pow pas pad 
be αἴνανῃ fr tultule Splryumulfi : 


OSt- 2. δ" 
Soi. 22. 


δε 
uppace 

[A eaualje 
fu op pu 
“1, αἽ,πε. 
(Te 
webu 


pelt if 
ἤπια ἔμ πεν 
Lop pur 
ful Eu 
wba 


qsnqfiu 


une PP. 


48 


be quipdkuy fr gapéu wnuplyagh putt paybp, 41) 2) Sop. I 
fits sl. gS pe 21 ---- 

Geb fanmaphy wen ραν Yrnkhounkfg bf alltob plas 
purpuite "fy lfanufites Ge kyle guirhapsahp Sight μερί, 
bhbwy ῥρρίε vuunfl Sagidiy. be kybg quilbtgyt act gopad 
tambo: Ge kplbgait tagu puduiilay pkganp pepe 
Sey tana pepapatrshep Of flpuy toga: Ge pyar 
αμιετοίς ρίν οἷν Ange] pends [ε ἀἠωμήν foouky yoyy & Jey 
pique apybe bk δα βν mayp puppunly bogus Ge bli 
Jopacuaghe puuahlay Aphayp app kphpeqmip’ γε ξῆνως ἣν 
aqgug ap bokppy ρα. Ge βρρίε χε ρώρρώπω ay 
kin Upuputs μων είν Bete be fantibegun. gb pukfe βέρως. 
putisbep {πεν fuouky Ung: Τ] ρωΐι αἡναμ βν, adbulpluit 
he quyprlisttouyy fit Le uk fil prog ἐβαπεκήνω. (|e aS are αν βή adel 
pli unpar pp lsoufti® Qraybjleughp bie Ge ghaipg puledp 
dp frpupuit shop puppune dip γριά" δίνω bp: Mapa 
[Alp Pupp ke Pyanliaghp k np μα ίγω, buf 1} β ενείγαιω, 
fb -ιρξωμωνν bef Qradfypay ν΄ Yotunaw be gUupar Ἵν 
papegfuy bf Yadiffepbay geeleqenns be lp agli 
Lbebageng, op pug Upepltagfa, bap bhp Sanfdiytgbp- 
Aphuyp be bhp tngact, Uppheaghp & Upepughe pbdp 
Jrouhg tanga 'f dip pqacu qlldunlhdu Unandey:  Upuiligur 
typi ulkohphuit qupliughuyp, bk. wubfit glfuleutia, O [Pus 
huslfigl αὐγὰ μήν, Qe ἤμυναν pig [μη api bay wubfiuy [Fb 
‘Prnqggacuyty ῥα. Gapacgluy Ylinpau Satipk pd «ἤξωνως 
wuitpup andpupd giujo frp be fuoulrgan. prog tau pp 
Aphumnuitbuyp’ bap plullay Ep ghpacuay bl ulkulplity 
aya dleg yuyu pigb be ilu gfp μα folag: (Ve σράξω 
gopy ἤωρδερ᾽ [AL μηρὼ uipplay ght. gb gla bpkp Fudp 
by ὠκπερα: Vy aye Ε oop ὠμώριι. (faba diupquph fl 
σα Be bybgh ghar ἀμυπρβή genacpe gluta wale 
Uenemds Shyby ee bli ἦν flpay ἀεί ἅν εἰωρ ἥδ. 
he Tiuppuphuug fit ncumnlpp dbp, he quinkyp ΕΣ μ. Ln Tus 
yuymp ahp ubufyy wkught, ke skpp skp kparyadp kpugbugpt: 


49 


Geb ἡβραμ Sunuyly poling be ’f flpayy wqusfaleayg foling’ 
yuenepy yayjonupl Shobg Wee pull, b diupzurphasuglie : 
Ge ag tutta ykphfiiu 'f fly? be uzutia μερήῤρ "plata, 
upp ke Sacp ke dppph δ. ρων, qepagh |p fawca 
hk ypoeufts yupfeu dts sh γα fig op Shunt de& Lb 
Eplekyb: Ge bgbhgb wlkayjh ap fuppangh quia Shun 
Lo : 


Ge anaes annus quigofdu μι ει 

peSutud ho dkbugegulld gplg Sayp kplan, (ar 
wneud Solapur, ap gdpudf apyby py ubpbyb fanaa 
phgkp Sagnda pad ὡρρπ, leu quaepp qoliqSuiipalate κ 
unupkypulur bhkgkgp appyp py dpudsipe χωρηωρίσιρ 
ykuyku suapSopp: Ge ἀμ δι ρήψρ ἀγα μῆνίημε apa stdp 
gekq, Seyp ρωρίγ 4) wnmplua (fh tap pluaphayy ways ppa 
uitugunlyb xuapSuq, op bybuy pgacugh qua be kegbgp adi 
yuippuy be ght wk Salley pay ap dfn be 
Suttuyug yopuny Yanlp qoununnugkaypu pry dpuadhpy. 
Wer the ped pe ὑπερρ |b έραμ Sumayf pa plunphypyy 
he ας ἐγώ qua fh suph lef ἐῤαρᾶπι [ΠΕ wzboupSf purple 
foounr[Feunljx opgeyp py Xziliuynf, gay dt be digi be 
yuefuntrutiw yur fualiipg με : 


Ge aye plghpighp χυπερρ antumuputiu, got gy: 20, 

$dir 19 fag ο΄ εἶ. 24 --- 

Ge ἐν kph? ἡψωγωρω [δε αϑ με πε μι. be gpopts ful be 
ple περ blu agublpnph Faqaftay ἀψανιήν afr bly: 
bij Gpunen’ le behang "fe Ugh tongars le aul gunua (\yedjte poy 
ἅμα. Peple αι aug’ ἔφ ἵν gakawt bk ghaqe pepe 
Le fitiquight wzubbpnph fpple wbuftu Shp: Gab gloua 
qunplruy. Πηϑήλν pg ἅν. πράξω wnuphag gbu Sey 
{4 ke bu wnmpll χά. Ge χάμω βρρίε ἀμ ifighag 'f 
tow ἔκ wu. ἰδ α ἔρητοι παρ Π]περρ. ὈΠΔΕ adhe [Faqacgace 


1 [δ plu ¢ plgg bl? 
H 


50 


bgp : 


Ge pywnn£p uppyt qoqaup puldkpaghp. luppaylgpe 
4} 13 & Se 17. 

etgee bp pkpacp anmginpyiig abpag, Sapam Geaghp 
Ungar gb inpu nphfts ἡξανεΐ, ngeng abpng’ npybe [Ff Sunfiupe 
wnujog pobts poe dlp. gh pitepns(dbanle mpuugkh μι Ὧν be df 
ungeng αὐ: gb ah ἧς yopnun dbp £: | qo[du wpuiplp 
fants dep. gb Sunnnunnkuy gfuabilp &[FE pupenp dfunu πεῖ. 
«πείνας Ὧῤ qunlidp poupenp plunge garguitley: (pe wenn ley 
CURE! Fig VUE I in Eee pe 
ἅδη. qe Τ᾿ μυνπεωδ- [νωηώηπε (Phat np ἔζων fr “επί πῃ 
gaol Sompy ltr upleulje γε βιν ἡνιωξωῆν πὶ βνυνβῖν gS bit 
dip GpuncasPppuinay, Saumnuinbeagh χά δ gaps pupae 
Pout’ unt; qhandis inp, be apuuglh > leq gSaknzul 
wnusf fp’ of dba Opuncof <Pypfumnuf. apo sfunp 
yueefuokr atts und : 


Ge anger wu quigo[de quyy pop g ξιΓ ρρβιιαπυβ : 

sg Spkznulug be Sanunnughjag, digiapy bk puipbfsou 
diy dkquenpugy, gun ἐστ δ} ypuncu, ogtibrus dig le ae 
bcuseae hep plunplay Sunuyfes gop founleghp %f [dfen 
wubb punung pag upplylrg. (aga qua ᾿ξ “έραμ inp S by 
anbunupaiify ploaSatipulets ἴε ωπιιρίγμωή ἦν bhbgk gaye 
Sumnnunn ἦε YEP uitfaugn lyf pputig ptofung. be inal p lia 
ge? Safem[dfrt, ap mpudsfgl dkdun ubpal youn pry 
putin. gap fins pp Satipulet ἔκ πα ει ρ μεν αν une pp 
δήδηδρεηλι unepph ἀρέγιπμπι muh. ἠ{δεηζέγα 4}. 5, εἴμ. 2. 
Upudhghp ap β ἅλῳ Song & umunacday, apadSlunk fase 
εἴα εἴν, pay faunal gun. aus ple une ppuils pre αγμῦς ἔτι gouge 
pe ply plenplayul: pay qb df ypatulrugl dkpakbay 'f undies 
bys Soph qpeug. unlpmge ποι ρίγωμε pry δ gopsug gop 
weuelghp ενιεΐνει ἵ, plunpkyage bk Sununnuglyage p ply. 
Un: 


Si 


Ure cit ποίσω ayunghy wndp, qlouquiqae [δεν anll ngs 
“4 πηπήση bruit. [ες angur ungh buyfulaymits quap plunpleayl wn. 
fiipt b fupunnk qo εξδιωι. βρη: hu pi[dtbnteaey ou quocpp 
“με ἔγεπεω μιν lf gin be ς ναι εμη. or ber quae pp ἤωπιν ἤει νωῆν 
ες αὐοριωή ἵν be παι ρίεμω ἦν kybegkgeyt gb unpop pba ba 
sorta yalap Sa Supa uppers ΠΕ ΣΙΣ ἀραπεμμνπεῖν ops 


« } yaefu (?). 


Wala gy 1, Saf 25. 


le ns gfunug quus dfs sl. S Due qnyup fits fer quire pti ly 
ΠΤ. τε piu nt[dophu hash gui πε, inpu Jfuncu, 
gap ς μίγγιπαι ἢ qguprhly wuintrung ἤ ἤπειυπε [4 ἐκεῖ fF αἱ εἰν ἡ ἢ 3 
«πίω " ‘| fu. 4" I, Supe 26. 

"U wuts wmyunpfl unLppe webu pup sp μ uppuquils was 
phuyp, tw leu ἐπί, μι dep Jfuncu ppfunas tunfu pul qoviaclgh 
ia py fread hayu wukth Le glen Sti ει fit Inst, he qyacunce 
[δ εἴ, Lapu ‘h peg punta, gap yay Lk ΠΟ wuughuny npn 
wuunnsny : Ost. 4: 2,, Sop. 4. 

P fait gaybplugeng ap api qQeacph gfilp. Of fay 
[ff lL pry ft PAL» gb gk ε Sauber [μευ με ἤν pl: 

Qa 'h ful ΣΎ " {μα tfrus penis peapdleuy 
ἤμῃρ» aul giliggpih fps Uf ὠς apg h ρα.  gubehyb 
ws sual bps fer pms buy “τα γι πη. wus is yp pt? 

IY a | fhusrzpae[Ffcup purgqacdp fh une [ip we ἔγεπιι πε he 
furry prs wu plryagh. quire wulrlp {usu U5 elias prot 


[Fhut ogunft he ns “π. busfuwtda. (Vey bu Jy Ε ‘h Ful 


H 2 


ΠΣ 
qe 2: 
Sap. 56. 


1)" οἰδω. 
41: 13. 
Sop. 58. 
{Π᾿γῴυ. 
#1: 6. 
Spr 3. 
‘| ach: 
1 1 
Spe 27. 


St. 
#1: 7: 
ζ ἢ}. 3. 


€pranqunn. 


ἘΠ 4 
Sap. 4. 


Yru[au. 
71: 2: 
Sap. 13. 


52 


εμέ πα. 1 >free wig ἤωΐναμρ yopu δή, Efile ἀπωρβίω ding 
[Pughtugh [εκ ΠωρῥαΓ yulapuy be yoifupay dingps qap δ 
payed wleqeny’ myubiipe ν΄ gununh ypuneub gay wupe 
he qupilingdivdj: wub. ΠΣ ψὼ £ apap ςπευαῆι, ἧς, diggp 
unpuny Yash diupfunl he bqeeypp uapw yulapns, youk, upilot 
Ye CJ BEA ABC EA tT aioe cee a 
Ρ png puny qhputine [ββμεῖν ke ungy myingbh app ’f ρρβώμιπω 
fancy Sununnu gh: gy. 11, Sip. 27. Ge dftgghn tur pug 
Fagafacpye fuoukp ify dp ἄμ ἡ, ἐμωμὰ ofp Fagqnfogkuk uitunf 
1 asnen EE grees penpaas foc fe πρ prereset rts 
phEgeesft pebg: pe βωπεν qeipdbmy puningyp (pore 
Fnqnfopbuith ghputiac[Ifeu ἦν Μὸρξ pepdk be παρ, yuyy 
app qeaitth frp untht ko αὐ. Oop be μα ΠΕ 
wbinupuit sh ping ν᾽ pug gapotth quitSunanny ἀνωΐμ πα 
{ων bqeupg εὐἰγωπῖν jfunuf.e by be platy uump, gh b 
aquibpnpt pay «ἴῃ δῖ, qaopke po gop ψηρδίτω, puigl 
he kqeuypp tapas gh sh ku Efi Sununughuy "fda: Ge 
fiancee stho[F ‘plunpae[Phate fis plfdatipalip i 
αὐτί μένεα με ems pp tei bape rye me pp ἐχοησι Hereeiecia 
ihn ΠΕ πα απ Olf Stare (fp Gough Te taiwan ae 
opfhop : 

Ugeybe® taf path qSuutfye duphanin ηΐμπριεωιεαίση δν 
wpa guppbhy Spl guulangluts Gye ul ἔκ πηϑπεῖμξ 
qua, puyg yl Stigkus ay Splznuls ag, faye wb. 
Nowe guy bf ump uckumpuitiy gop "fe wbeupluity mak 
umfebifay apf wn qiisthacl be qin fep ἔς ψμωζβῃ 
σψύημαμαπα. ke qupdkuy yh Funlivtnuhf frog, bpletgun 
Sebgumuljte inbsunty “fp unbeupleuiy te μων app win μηνί ἢ 
he ding frp ke quay yhplfpt pa: 


Ate 


juqugu wnlydidivs punting bo αὐἰγωπΐν dkpay ypuneuf 
Pp funn: 
“Welt Sayp ghpfiuenp, unnnnads Coidiupfuny punnleyd φέρ. 
ffttu ζωηρὰ βεραρμΐνερ ἴε ghphbp wadkiuyu ἀγα βαρ βερπάρ, 
quppuplug fun: ἤρξω μαμὰ Ε ᾽β ancy αμμππ ες. 


53 


Sae[Akuth: Qrupdhuy nbuluy puplpupfir uunnday, [46 
μεναι ἵν fos pap Ε, yo begh Ἱνεδω wntiaey g[Fuqgurnp nila 
δ᾽ fb pay αὐμπήνι ἵν Eushage be distoanutog fuss ξεν 
[εν μή fl πρώ ἔξω yay & fen purifies gap webs wpunugarp 
dupe pun aunkbpp depo ke pun Wlivtuae [Beats yur be 
b pltpnky ahaa dpa] puttf punkyd χρρήβνυ ke ghpibe : 
beh find patie ρυμηδ qS file aqanl le apap, fo (Fase 
qucnp le fava adboay wpunpudng: Unie apay baba 
wut yh ἡ α ἔπεα ἵνα [διωανε πρμπι [ prt ws pps lias Ἱμω{ι ας. 
gue, apyke ghpp wunnudayf fipphph wn Ἵμα μεν πα 
gh Uufuwtdar puthouphacfir «πως bein μα ρέμιωρς. Ἵμω lew 
ὑπερ woqnu mul (FE «Πωμη πα begk ὼς he diupyod gape 
Bree: Vy κα ἠρίμε quyy ωὠμξμεψ. (\py be aqantian 
ulkukphutr Uknutt Ἵν μευ. be ppfmnnufr. _bvputiunugpie : 
Upp Ἵνα μεν be wuugup [BE Say alktahapoy dpa puiipe 
ξιιηίγηδ᾽ χα fp Sagas le ghey f ἤπηξ tapas μεν Ἱμϊιεῖι 
h Al eee Mc daa Tire Rens. 1a) teitaa? Rice 8 Pa 8 

a wubkp Sayp fp abou pay meuiight qSagh bf Ἵμω hu 
wp sh pp fanits [4 δἹνωνείκω (FL Suiyp [Fig angus qh ag gob 
“ΕΣ gapdsko: Ge pupaluy wal, wn sling pol dinpy ay biagli 
mubbpuit fp glin yup (Plats, gh gh hw kyla bd πὶ 
Suypil fl be win ζω ρῖν Bley le anno’ (oP be anno αν δ, 
dbp: Be qupabay unepp plgSuitipalats bi legk gpl ffapl pails 
walt [86 pppunns αὔξει αν. be wun ws yupryg pou fy den byag: 
an μαϊγην εἶν rape ene eae 

ὅγε puphlucun [Bhatt nbunh depyy yporuf pypannuli 
hots way oppag Yu dknkyag bo ful μαρία & ψωμί 
ἐκ yunnklpug. gop adiathp mpurgkay be quyannneulais df Yuap 
pee [Fpet ke puipkfooun [fet ufpljl προ munadeay ἔς 
S bunk buy bt dknkyng be datcuty upunnl ἔγ psy, puphy 
deynbg, Yong, Sung, upelpag be my alkyl yortonye 
ἔμ, apyku wubr ἐς ἔρήῤρ quguiilt, qloacthe [ες qdinlis 


126-127). 


Urgl- 
Uapt[d. 
(es 


Sap 21. 


| neh. 


~~ 


11: 23; 


Sup. 46. 


ΠΠ 8. 
tH. 26, 


Sap 53: 


η ark. 
41: 22, 


Sap 21. 


ὁ ον. 
ΤΣ) 
Sop 5» 
hu ς εἴπ. 


<ifjr. 20. 


ὅτ. 
ἘΠῚ Τ᾿ Ο: 
Sa 9. 
ὁ τυ. 
Ἢ: 14, 
Sup. 6. 
ὅτ. 
1: de) 
Sup 25. 
Wu [du- 
#1 20, 
$dir 53. 
1 ach. 
152: 
Sap. 31. 
O3St- 
ἘΠῚ: 
Sap 20. 
OSu- 
ay. 11, 
Sure 15. 


rl: 4: 8, 
Sop 34. 


Spa: 41: 2, 
Sap 5. 

uit. br- 
pry higln 
“5.75 

Say 26. 
φῦ. ay. 2, 
Sop We 


54 
Sahunul wuunneusar[d but : 


“πι πιπ pep une pp wr ἔγεμ “ως. Ge Ef Ἴ:πε πἿι- L[dk np pur 
fu ding lL Ey, 96, ΠΡ ΧΩ he ὅτωι ἤν “πη he ΠΩ 


Be qeupalruy wuk. [Ak Eu Ew ἜΣ ὧδ μ Wy din pune 


“| yu hu mul. Fu ful ED yupae[dfct μ hluwtp : 
{rap dl ως. fu Ew df Yunpy μ puupl fuout dbp = 


Aeybe ἐμ guybinpnu, qoefuu bo bu aqskgh qsuyp fol 
ΠΟ ἜΡΙΣ 

ἴχωε (μα με anmphyagh fepage ἰε ku ὠηω ῥα eye 
qh k my Mfup[duiphs πωφξ ἀΐῳ: 

Ge be an deg Sanunnughyage mul. [η΄ Σ ψιιήν agus 
wags sled, ayy be uty Sarcuuuaghyag purtpe Ἵνα yf : 

Upiuk wabyprf Sayp ἧς fans nga aquigl qb ρωρᾶίγα 
quauay γωρέμιωρς ξ, way gb quSbughu quan “ff suph: 


enpeugy Phen (Fbruihy anephyag uppog : 

“Gale ὡπερρῖν anbrpuitioaw bintu qpupblsoun(Ffet wbunt 
Μέρα, gpuncuf ppfunnup (fp Ful puiphaddiity gap wunndl 
wacpe ἡπεήωμ ἡ ἀπρδπρ 4" 7, Sipe 55. Ge ἐιαίγω gh ph fin 
ξωρίγα! be αυβωπιι gb ἤἄωαμρ ply ὠϑώξ aman day : 

Ge unepp qoqns ἀμί. pul apy i & ap qannangaypin 
“Ὡπ L[dk 9 hun ΝΣ ΩΣ, np dknwet, ke Jivh eu 
[FE guipmegkuy ful & kh & pg mgd [anmday, op b 
βωρίγμου ful & fants kp : 

Qeepdbuy aul ρώμην dp & Ganncud, be dh df Suara. 
Orn 
unepp γος ὧν ᾿ξ ἠω[δπεηζίγωᾳ aul. (\ppbwlp, quays gpl 
akg. Uf dkghghp, k b[Fb dkghgh np, achflp an annnnemd 
purpkfacu qypuncu ppfunny, qupqupr be quitnupunes, ἔκ Ἵνω 
ξ pura (Ife bk [4 πηπι [Ife dequg “ρα. kag [Fb de pag, 


μασι δὴν he dia py has diupyt 9 qwunaeuw *™ δ“ uunnise 


55 


ayy ἦε unter | app quus neqauny be Saneunnuts 3 “(yur μ fer 
une ΠΡ wpa τι α- κα ἤ εὐ din pulpit he une pp «εἰμ εα prs wf E wr. 
fupt puplfucu, [he ns 7a] ἐς: 


Quckyapy μων. muughyjng- 

papabay Supgutibl key aepugay spunffge be ς ἱγωνίε πη μη. 
ahpag: [FE goup opp χρξβμιμ ιν opp ῥ ψωραΐη, diupgt 
fephuttg ybu bu Suuppep. opp ἐς leu be bh buy μωρβμωρς. 
he ἔμ Silay bh entra, qaiitin "fy ψηρπίξαι ὕω Mpnkp 
he galas 'f dknkya [huis [4 ξωΐωι. lpnkp. app bu unpus 
willl ppewhets le bs anno uduslust : 

Of annus unlkifg ig ung quyuapup guapSu wn 
appl ypu frp, ρων fp yupg & ke xunpStuy guapSt fp 
ξ μη bk Xadiupfune (leu yayin Ef dlpng gnpdags gap 
Lppbifs potuapunfp fp Soliapane [Pbk qXyfiupfuits froufp 
wubyad. dp ap ghpbluuypg bk di np ἦν [FkpaSueunnfg be. df 
np (uit )unuyu gfrupaqurg ke yuttilinpphg. sb yuptuits lhe palrinay 
func munncubuyftr unpSneppe 

Cer EE qacp amaneday, ppfmnnuf be pig Sutipuhaitif 
ko unuphyuluttf uppay thbgkgash ἦς joubp, grtbu ἀπε 
fhayne[Phuitg be funumfiatiy Shpng whuugkp. putigh kpkp 
bt funpSacpyp wnnewduyfly gap f fkpacun Suskay appre 
fep dpadifa. be uppry yoSaitiia εἴεδ αν diupguiph ft: “\ yale 
anya stupor (Fp. bphpapy’ “ἤριπε [ἀβεῖν, be kppapy ueepp 
Ὁ τ ΤΕ ΠΕΡ ΡΝ carport Maret alegingg teen τε 
ng ἐρξίμαμβα αὐ αι ῥα μη μίῃ be ἔχω Γ᾽ ails με. unnby : 

Ge pupdhay Sapgutth dt ἀίτη ἤωρᾳεωηπερήωφη, (AL γέρε. 
fauge apg op ἤα tm Bley yopa Gl dunlin fagplrung, fast 
yp! wnlegf wqurglung (fe umn fhuyk ὠἵμηβ. [AL buf 
pt frre pl qoucunn, qgyye, qubp be quyy «μαίας ἵν ρεωρίνς. 
gapeac[Ffetu, “fr uncer flay ὐἡμηβ : 

Of “86 beph boats uggs guar uitualybe® uitunfs frog ple Uys 


τς Orr Be Jian [ὦ L pultbatary ‘ adkblgache 
2 ἃ. puch 


56 


punk 'b ἀξ ἤωρημηπερήωρη ag figek = Upp ayudiiel, 
umn putifg akpag yypotlrgue Xdiupinm [dfs nuns depay 
Jbuncuf prpanauf apy ku χωρέειν. ἴ- bgle udkagh ophtu 
ἀρ uae ke fumphne[dfet. qap kp dep βαπε ppfanay 
‘nufaunybe nuke bre mp uneun fuoup ybepng witunfs [uouf le Sunyg 
taps uunnatiyy Ee μας αι, gy Sle - 


Τι jplusun S \ phat bu [9 


GEE ap ψωμί, applulp pubs qaeqqunpun queuiin [dfet 
wunuilewspy orf ngs warner & pfsrlannup 9S uphaenp Sapgdin ts 
he quanutiae[dfetiu muuthfy ε Ὧι. agus guy be fel quae pp 
“ἤριπε [εν ke quynnncashuis diapelfite be apf nbn de pry 
Jbuncup pppunnup mink ke piligh. β΄ Sununnughay Funfisliealf 
he bg ωὑς aecunn gk plifunyne [Beate 


uel (?)- 


apg: “πε pppundilay bu: 

QNurruufantifir Vigyhy lew ppbunnritleay bl 

«Ὁ. Pypfunntbay ube gg wuly Ε: 

“. Τὰν aul ξ. πρ qnkp dep yfunee pppunnw Suits 
[26 γέ; & bh quwnmppats tap ἁμῶς ξ: 

OVP USE apannacfpuit be Spuntiats μανίκια, δ ραν ypuneub 
Pppinnnup gap ἁμῶς κεῖρ : 

Q. Τῶν & gap nbpt dkp squanacfplng mhb pg te 
Sunuunughyag prpng wubyrf Of ΓΔΕ upplughp gbu, 
qywune puis fl ως κυϑέρ: [ράμξω bk δὰ quae βρῆ 
Sopit fuliy yea legh 

fy. Put? bb ne fpatip nba dip fume 
Pppacnufe 

“. (OF ayupaite bbe “Yyufu γπεωπι δῦ, kephpapy ψαρώρς. 


57 


fuupre (Ape, kppapy Sucunn, soppapy Munn [Ffet, ς βίν ες. 
copy Seopyn (Fp, [ει fligkpape ubp op & χμπείμ able 
gut : 

“Ὁ 6.8 Pig & pppunay be ζω apigfufe quipnllp qua 

4“. apukdp gh πράξω pugs αἷνριωή μήν ἐκ ἐπι μερίη μα μι 
unepe Ehbg kgf Suunnug ke dg Suph & ἀρ μίαν  ανα ἐπα! ε 
«Ὁ. (ley he Saunmagfit kpuith yb wnupkuyply acuny deg : 

“. (ey be vacppyoS athe an binupathh sb yaya wukypod 
[4 dkp Sanunnugup ἔκ. suitbap [FE po bu ppfpumau app ft 
wunnday np ἔμεν μι πῃ bhp: 

A. Upp & tnpe opp χερβίμαμεῖν Mpnkiy Munn [ἀρ tn 
Lingus Syliupfiin bbe [BL πεῖναν : 

GQ. (06 bb πεΐμε ιν be fuuphae [Aft patigh bpbfaaypl as 
πεῖν quiyu ztaupe (Apt, ag mdf qyncumity le ng πεῖ θῇ 
1 «με μάταν uneppe funie ajuophh ἧς bk ἄγωϊωρβωαν M pune [ἀβεῖν 
Ungar he ἦς sphar[dfed: 

A. Ue apg & aptly uncppe ἤριπε [dpe ke Sagopa 
qne[d fet: 

Q). “Gages ξιγωρδ μὴν une pp ἥρωι [pects be ζιωχηρη πε [2 ft 
app achfiy qdkqu pulgebuhuts [ε Ubpyenp Salat : 

a. WEEE ghpkbuyp opp δ'ναλημν ᾿ξ diupg pephuing 
ὡμη γὰρ ng ncip qlequ pyhupiuhute ἐκ Ἱμρηαρδιωήαἷι: 

ἡ. Τίων apghalp ful Sydiapnany ba ἐξ nif qeyuy pub 
“τη slpl fouyp : 

A. Uerbup πεῖνβ qSannunnn [af δ umepe epeg 
furits gh pb fouypg + 

Q. Vat Saye yqunnaculjuth, πεῖ μα" 7X dipper {{ωμπε.. 
[σμεἷν ᾽ν ὑπερ unbuupuitky gap yunnnefplag bp dep 
unepp bhbghgeast gli yupr[Fhutt wulynd. [A bp [dapp 
wi gloupS μεναι ἵν ke pupaghghp quaebwuputl wiley 
wpupudng ap Sauinungh ἦς. lipnkugh ybggh bmp ag 
Sununmungh quinuuyupinkugh > Subie, teaglyb ful; tule 
qSueunnn, quuyuzfaupne[Fpeta wuinnchpkp le angus Spal 
wae pp Myunne [Phat wneyp : 


Wognu mre 
bippunytg. 
4: ὃ: 
Sop. 12. 


EL (LEE mil 
bifpuyleg. 
1: 5: 

ςζ, ἢν. 5. 
st. 


41: 12; 
Sop. 28 he 


Sap. hu 20. 


58 


A. Pile ἐρν, apaluhp (ol app ἁμῶς βἿν πριν μετ ἵν 
pew bk gpwnuunh αῤρέρω, dptisl gpppunnu ἀρ aur 
πο τς 

ἢ Dapp bu ἀμαςπηρὶ ἀρ υβηρι" bhefp ΕΞ byfay, opp 
“ως bya ykphfiua fipugul, kplpapy! mppaSunl, op plana 
quicbunfus μας ὠΐαι, "ft Spleguhagt wunmbrye be Eppape’ 
“Ἐδῖν infubu ἀμως κι πα Gun. χιπεεῆμει ρει σαᾳγ wanna fpaiie - 

᾿ς Pipbunne kp le paiphfuowtt dep apeldp ἁμῶς {δ 
pypwnwuent nf bk gpwanuunch gfglp ppl qhaww : 

Q. Ut yuShag b Eun ᾿ξ Soph αμιεϊμαν ἤει ξ glug 
exsecenprene [Cl foes gle plfseneeeposangy Tepe pol preanereprantgy Ee exact pias μασι το 
ἤωΐωῃ : 

“ Τὰ σείφαρ ἀμίαι δ- ulltiulupo ᾿β' Ἵν ιν apg astunf 
εν as apap Fugueng be gyrfa unlkubgach ε ΠΣ wayuphy 
taper tu ἀμως kof goput quyuaubl : 

ἡ. (Obybur bapa yaStglity puyg ag ble oes oo ἐ 
πράξω qu dkp ypunee pppunme [yy Uap yyuglay 
bade Pislili eterna Na Na KO I lly ups Bice 
ktkpynpsuluts: [Sugg dpfunpy dp ppp ag yyaghay 
byl pulgetalets dkqop ἴε ἐξ πενεμ χύδην pylopinalls ἴς 
tb pgnpsuba apyke quaue, gap vacpp γας αήμξαν με bona 
paths yayntbp wubyaf. gy 1, Sipe 13. lap 1s vuphub 
king 'f handing «ἴω μάνα, ke ng ‘fp Yunling uni, ayy μενα δα, 
Stuitt: be puttpts dupdfiy begl ke pluullegun. ’f kg : 

“Ὁ. Uephep wud [μου ἴσια. poy ἐπίγι αἵ dkpay yfuncof 
prfunnuf, unas [4 ng : 

OO ga peer ean eat iene Sen eee 
dpussifis dfizin bk. Sutbunyug apy be περι γας artis wae bens 
putt 6 fhaylurg aula, [FE apanneits pip: Yul ἠξαρῖν 
b ὕσραΐ!ξ wubfe [FF Spb pulp pou gasts pity δε, paiyg 
[up dp gunpy, ke pupllvout dkp pumacglag ας ορῖν fsouml 
gr [Ff uubyad. (lg faut pl frog by puppunu nye, gb 
qonp Sununuughp yfas pe purpdlruy er wok. bu yoitdol 


1 a. wer df; Vice Lphac ph play : 


59 


fll ns fis μουβμ ἂμ! gap poem ἦν Soph βιὰ quel 
Suiinegh ἅδῃ: 

A. Pete Hu putty abun dkpry ghuncep ρρβυιαπυβ 
"γι fips: 

[OF sapp bt ap qliapge ipl bt. “|yufo anges ghuapne 
[Fpet, Lphpapy σεχβη quculia (Fp, kppapy unepe ἤριπε 
[Bpct, ke sappapy? unepp ἀγώμηπε μεν tinplate ὡρβεῖ 
ἐπίγεια, dkpay ypuncup ppfnnnub- 

Sey gpa ἔμωρα paSatiayar [shat flep if bat’ 
he yuulte ng be ῥρήσε [ἀμεῖν Sageng Μέρη. ayy bt μος μή 
hong Suphacopp: (\pybu unepp bh bgbgli pppaoaup aul 
LAL np unlinutugaeguivk ghayut pep pupanp wn, ke ἐ|4 
nip 7s wtb gas gubl ἵ, pute hu wntkh: Uyeyse flay 
gapn ziti, ghupe ρως μἥμιρ αι [Phare kg flppfe dad; opp ag 
EL Suphucopp ἴε gacnts pple [tbat : 

«Ὡ. Coens unlktingi qfunp aga ofplybt fee path 
PN ET IT ET SED sl 

4. Dapa Suphacop poage wyufiipi ufo’ farts pol gel 
waits dequg quinSunf. κρίμα ρα. fants th pgapSala de qug- 
Lppapy’ ania dp guapga [Fbuit, Surgiane[Bhaty ἔν purpbfsoune 
[Phutr, gap aydT be Qappapry’ anit Yannupardfe αἰ gkoup Sp 
wnupk gifusplr ἀρ βν pep Sayph alkbulay be qpunaly wnuy 
ghbtugatipu te gllenbrusze : 

AD Sayp qenncatait, gap duly & leg qeurpl fvoune 
[μὲν uppag mbky unypu [FE ag? 

GQ. (6 ἡ; & ὡρδωΐ, ke Saph puphfooum[dfrta bogus 
σε βαρ. putty tapas fupom by pani ἐν αἡνίγωᾳ poaphluo~ 
un [huts king Gbbquitfp tanga, apyku yay &'p oops pyar 
puite Slplrnphauag be Sk pgaeudsaqug, gap | Fad ayunnu pare 
wuby μη. qaeghy, [FL puSutiayp (FE ἀμήν μη περ, blak 
pybppis myupip’ Τὴ κα μιρίη σαν oppag?s dappaphlg, {μωρέ 


1 ἐ {πε με. gplruy : th yaptal” ifruniueaplugh wl ats dE p 
Jfuncu, yuputul upuusl E quar ppul fer ; Qaqau [Δ γα. 


ἐρίρῃ" 4ι.. 1, Sipe. το. * ἀν Sup. 
I 2 


GY [Se 
[Abuwy. 


wmmnwy), gy. 4 


60 


wu) Tiupunfipnuwg, Say puny lung, Xybuenpug, ἔπε μεν εν 
εν ἡ ἃ ἴῃ le wits ys uppeng Eqhglt Jfigusunul ‘h πε 
ag τ rT LAs TLS HF ΕΙ wus slip : “| yar leu puSutuy p ἴε py fppt 
dfupl put bq wubh dE δια. Aug gh fie puppannad : ΣΟΥ; 
nln μ agape uty hu σ᾽ με prs ils wuk [4£. Swtgn qSagfu 
appagy ἴκ αὐγῇ: 

a=. [Fz ΠΕ ε uy ere D se hu, ns wntblp gurplfuocu 
quae ppue 

a). [ὁ ξ fun Uinpus fusuts αὐ πη ppfunnufs supsupl gut, 
Γι. ng πεῖ, gif A as gS uidiupdushae[F fit μ as qupuuslye 
wm ppuzyoe [dhru wuunnaceény, npuy bu pee une pp Ehigtgfu 


Le Sop. 16. pplunauh “τα ἔτι πα, [48 unepppl pulp quictunfiul hE tug 


ρα ἔγηπη 
FL: it [fe 
Spt 35: 


inl 

Sop filusly 
obunt 
Jfuncof. 
qachu, 

1: 16, 
Sap. 10 ap 
fuut hha 
4 whlrury 


wuk, 


yucfunltbwhatip. Saufit aetintug, αν gebpuibs anprdng, 
he aye tw be πρίν dip ype αι ἔγιηβω ἐπίετε coe 
ποτ ἀπ ὡς ag be repo Pears fale τος ogee 
αν fol egbghs Yrupdluy ku wk. ἤνπερ yoydl ἐς. 
ἤωρερ gay yop ful; poyg wy bbughp ghup pl: be 
hes gryg “παπαῖ qetrgpu tenga woke [FE ()pleuwhp pugacslp 
bh (fh wait Sop με: Sbulkpy πρηωΐρ μι Ἱμωηίιβ, [4 
apyke yuywtlgue ἴδιαν uppey αι ἔγινε εν bk uppay bhbgk 
geye: (lpp yocunfp Ἐπ jgkujpp bk ag ἥλατο tl aqumiep 
“πε ρΒρ unlkuayh, gap dpginpy ἰκ μωρί{ιοιΐν μέρ ypunce 
«ρωμμξ αν πα εὐνδίανπ. quantify prpaed Ὀ αίαρ 
opStbuyppe Sop fuliy, Fumuthgkg fp quitpuujyun be χει. 
γωϊναιων meprurfone [μενα ες Τ᾽ gunghe le fulidy qllequenpes app 
uaiigf Spaifi uiioppumbyfs “ya ku, apple fol ἀρ δι 
fey plq qeutiu dhd fu diupguiph fe dinubufy gap sunk, [4 
pupae puplaghay dda μιωμήπε [Bande fp flepay yor 
ubifuyy be furplroy qo ke bq ῥ᾽ poitg hy ful) μωΐιημωρή μη 
ndusig yuchafyes plig anbeufle Ee χωρς περάσμῆς A eee 
putig fr mytilbl qunkrufys μερίαν wunnlkgf ynifulrifryy. fool 
LafuuSayp dep ψπφυξιβ yunnibwg qntrufys Gages Sagnif 
ἀμί δ wulynife [0 ayp 156 yb ὡς ὦ ἢν Jug fleaie με περ 
fap wppyyh qpkg «ἔδιωι. ἀῥκιπιορ yuulh, pul σεΐβε κι 
wuke puligh bk qa. ἐξ ψωηβεῖ, squindbyng bu Puquenphs 


61 


Stake taghyb apghul fol gh nile an tunkop ynfubrfuy 
aquallgue be nile muughynife yuundb gue. ape wns 
whan εἴρη ypuncuf pppunnuf gap wuke ψωμΐν quequpae. 
ἔκ wppuSanlan : 

‘be hu unepp kbegk sft pppanaup ἀν [4 apa bk. Sagng 
opp ἐξν (fb μων bpldbwy pupaghug, aun puipaybyu 
trun ἀέρα, ypuacuf ppfunanup quyy tgutiahh. | yufipe 
quictnfu ke gygye ded ἔων 1 ts Sangbing ἔς diupgpuiphpg 
Segngly [FE squulbyag & γάμῳ Sayp pl fe funnupudp 
wobeupSp ke glkquenpul pupagkug είν 6, [41 quindkyag 
ξ γάίῳ Suypts εμεϊμιωἤωμπη εἴδει. wyuind op -— 


“bucets (?). 
Qannwufuwip- {a4 Ε ἐν “ἤναι ypu uri i as Ephac 5 


. 


ΞΞ ὦ Uy [48 df E spun ts wun Sry gop ppfese 
unu fit uanbE, ees 147 tL pin kp niiuhp πεπιμηπηΡ wukh [4 ἔμῆπε. 
Et “πε επεἵρ he πὸ df. quput ww Abs hy ws wut te χε νι, 
pro S athypraslarte : 

a). 1 “1, wm yplappl wubt to unew [uoufit gl ζω Ἴπη 
wurst ἡ E. npuy ku he ἐπ pits dE uuk, qb op une [uouf feprg 
wlan [uouf: L Seyp Dapus ΠΣ] LE: 

Aas [πω gplq Seyp ayant gl yreuncughy Seg 
qnppuils ΠΧ spss ural - 

a). Usb Γ ρίγη gh pugs ab pula μ earreeay p Erp us ass Ehioboft 
qd “πε mula [4 “Πα πη) dfutigul Ena με μέτα 
wu plap fl jpesunuasuurusls “ΠΗ hulp; autre une pip EhEntoft [4£ 


ι ἃ, beg. 


[Ὁ πη πω 
ΤΠ ἀπο 
unk > 
Yara ob 
furunurghr 
unlrulp 2 


Bereykg. 
1:0. 
ζω}. 27- 


‘fh A AIEEE 
pulp 
erprye~ 


unlu > 


62 


apyku appre dp wtiquil & πως, myayku ἔκ yup [ἀβ εν be 
quinn nga ξ΄ dp [ ng kphae : 

Ὡς Wop ppbinn περ le paphfoowt dip ghakp upg bop 
grup (Fp dinng inge πρὶ quan ἐκ quiSantf yopkluh 
Sumumunkp, anya [FE πε 

4. Ut Saye syunnoculuts Xoefiupeny ba gpk, fant 
uuappy wu 46 Ogaee pepacp fb pup εἰριωήμωρ atone be 
ful apngyy tage Suilfhp Glau, app kb uncn be fouphae~ 
[Ahutt wail bo kas μι Nydiupnm [dba ἢ ρώξω 
he unepp leh bglgft yuyertbrung κείν. 

A. Uprhep ak dep prpnas qfnkp gop: pannuue 
wif, anyar [FE ng : 

Q. Of Saypr Epifiancap, amnncwds δρεπωρβια, ag 
yuymbleag gop aye appeal fp ufphyy. πράξω be wal 
“ιν funnupurdf a ztaapSh [FE as ap ghink, ag Spl gulp 
ylphfia ke ἧς npgh payg dpa Saye ayy feu unk ba 
yuh full, bs Jooufl) ayy gop rug qunnncky ten [ud Suyp 
μι" χων fooupl: Skalip tughjb (ol [46 ppbwnay apgfe 
uunmday gurdek με μα ng lus quiphp wuby blab ag Sey 
inp γα! γεπεξ 5 παῖδε : 

ZS. Weg apn [Shak kp dep gare ρρβυίαπω as ἤωριως 
“πα Sop wunnacfputip gfunky gop qpunnunnnuilify wus 
“μη, adap mpugayp wubte be Sulunul ph prog g bl δἰ επωρ.. 
wna [Ahuts appa ἀνία δ, [FE 4.1} wnutbXoaluils pasnannnusls 
ΤῸ porcunprasty fant Megane npg: 

Q. Of thar wuugh ply [BE tapas by Fumuirg Sop 
fruphan [4 γωΐν, gap ςπηπΐν να ἵν supliy δ ριν be Suiting 
quan opktu bk quan yunnnefputia fupyht: δέω βρέ 
bP qfupdurnybuits nga, op Yl papepurrlgan ἦν {ρα ἦρος 
tanaph be pupagkp tanga quuitiguiie σταίη» wan ᾿ξ πρωί! 
q5agpu tagus 


1] us Must op 5 Supgdiuhg 8 


63 


dE pay Jfuncuf ppfunnuf pup fuoufit. 


puts (?). 

Ver {μέρει nike dkp gfunce ppnow gbep displ be 
appt pep uncpp pully wguibpnng ἔκ Sonunnughyag: 

“Welt pulwun ορβνωψωκω ἀμμηρβεῆ. Epag qlfinu ‘ong 
mubyef. gb diapdfitity fol Sohiup fun Ge pwlacp & [ε ὠρμεῖδι 
[oP Sofuppun pulighyb bs le qupdhay wus bu bE Suge να 
frybuy ' ykphufg, ap nemk qQuige qayy Yleggh yu {μα γα : 

Uyeyhe alps dkp γραμμαὶ aapintag gopaula quy~ 


OSt- ap 6, 
Sop. 51 ἴα 
Mitr slo 


Unufh. [μη πιά wu bpunug “Ἵνα [ν πριν youu Jud al IS lp 59 


Ἐπ μάδω el gee gables pep, [AE epldapp ἥπερ 
quinpuunighp dkq quirquils ὡρμπι [4 γαΐν. ap atte wntbbyag 
fl qlaapSacpy ἡῤρῆπι [Φγαΐι. fants Suneunnughjag pepng 
Siem ppl Epleliag beagle ἄμε ἀξοπεα μεμα 
Le kephanuuuiyps pug tia: | yun ql Sag uttfoding ἐν alae 
feps opsilrug, goSugues bpbh ke wu. Uokp ἡνρέρ, μα & 
101}|1}}}Ὁν FG ap ων kp punpling parzlup ἐμ purne[dfnt 
Lf (Baga [Bf εἴδη. (Uyuybu bef pustules aul) : 


Wefan [μεν appr lenpSppy okants ἤρα gpuneuf 
ppfunnup: 

Of aa diguapy bk puiphfuout dkp ypuneu ppfmnns, gunk 
munnday, bun gourg’f aba pep ορϑίμγωφ gow, wub une pp 
ware beurre μιν 5 phe + 

Uysbipt ptgptyn | agkpubrag qopk εὠμήνωξωιξ αῇ 
finfunphbugh qoagh quays ἄρεϊωρβαν ἐπωμωβῇν fps apunnae~ 
whats. funis upjbappl wu? opSulrug, myufhpt aqu slug 
gnkuntb, gb ynluuphbugh Gugh ἀν Xoliapunany bu sdiapulfl 
fe ap be fol fpnfuaph gar Sagat Sopt kpitiaenph wae 
quyku. be yaptud bnkeu [4 ἐβηξμμι μαι. Sugh wyjo frp 
Siapdp, yajudud χα πες μεμα. qSoph unleash hy ape ῥαξιωρ.. 
ἤξρωι. inp ke appl pep: 


opt frtausly ease 
fuoufs. 


Le wu 

Wp efiarpr_ 
ἐπι ἔξω 
δα γίμε,. 


64 


ἴδ. μυωριώμ, apple pl opSta [Fp «πείζιπι [Bhuits 
κι gaeSae[Fbuit : 

Cat Saye ener purple fuliugay quyte bepbeu atl bey 
anu sit gplg, Suyp αἰεί, defile deg quang ley 
μ 46 Τ᾿... & lapel πράξω be ang glu yuspae [8 ιν 
gafapaw, [FE Τὶ μωδίγαι goo fap fol) quay aby αβιπξρ 
dp fuapy bk puipbfvort dip yfuncu pppuunu [FE πω πᾳ be uncin 
ὑπ ρ te ψηβωρίδμη bu pum ἤει feplreig. opp pay 
Suigpe faunflts γενεήν αἱ ωΐν be μναῖ εν χα ἦν ἀΠπωρ εν be appetite 
fepbuitg kag [AL ppfunauf, fants ἀμωπρβᾷ ke nb μέρ 
ξεν ppm uk, [46 1 ωω 6 Maple hs “yur le 
gaye Yad wb {8 aif np ἀγπὲρ ples un ae 
ζω qldurghay squnmun fis math ke pupful fowpl ae [Fld 
τ μμδα Fayafapgut, ing & dial ke upper he ig 
Ppfmnaps : 

(punp yun funleuits yar punky, Valle: 


{ppbgue hh gurus Supaytny yup uobunt 1782, 
ful pun ζω πῇ nj -- Κι. 


(ξλ ῥα ενεν ἤ runt .) 

ede cae albany δια. ynatithe sfaSagacin ji. puirgh 
“πρώ dkSun. ghplbauthgne [ει fibepkgfis ‘fp με).  |rul 
“ἐν [og plyash tngfh yudufulrag 'f oppor pl ub pie πρείωρς. 
wm (Blut: U wut πρῳ ἧς Yurpuigh [dugaeguiily χένηρς 
wnepp Sage: Uy ven qupgue epby queer fonpSpy 
quips be φρωήσω [ν δ) ἴω ματι [Fut fun βρη fiigpaquey 
κ΄ pgncinquig: “Ys be bpbu wthbuy gpl ὠῤμηῴ & 
Sacunnand piiypld ΔΕ, gb qoep χίθέρπεδβμεῖι, χωρμίεως. 
“πείθβεν [ε φυηχωμίπεννω auipugpne(dbuih Gant pkp[dnqae— 
[Furi wy lew [86 qui fg, [FE qepag, [FE qeunhy b [4 
pyeuifig ἐς είδ γπι [ἄρ husky ups buns: (8 fp unguitl 


1 %, muurntor [FL p[4 df hun!” ρα df αὐ busy : 


65 


751:π| ite be quyuhuun [δ ῥεῖν frog qunutifglp, og b [Ab Ρ dug 
balay ξ, ayy attefeupd op seg enya ‘fp uli εἴπαίγιωμ & : 

pene Sopt: bulutip ke πρρεηΐν pep dp feapeh [ε μωρίημουβ. 
yD be ἄδρισ be jure funbruttes jure funbofg. [od : 


Ge dpbekeby Wtfpip prey mumgsgug ἢ ρυῴηρῃβ, 
Saympbin ἔν Sayuukp μέγαν gunuttlyay yurgtoupSp debug 
Suyng opftuul dp dinnkifg wyuopbh ap ash ραΐνω ψ πγείωρς. 
wom [4 ην, purgaed μὴ δ fauinae [Flurl be guiifep “fb pase mdf 
quay bef plegne digyphify pL utggbulhuts [dupytaritegp. 
I το oe pae gest beatntcne τ rope en 9) uarel ncaa 
ke Smfupep ψωμηωι bing be pilianntingh le de&unapugls 
ἡ“ π υμεῖι ΠΠρυϑηρηβ fe παρ! fe plereiteg, paral 
wun ἱξρῳ nye: Ge yydt npundkguy bu gh uitigunf 
[thpldp plungpft, wiih ly Κηξῖ, mbaitig sthpages(ebudlp. be 
εἴιυΐμκνε ute gf sherpugh qnuittry, dew unite imyquepbyay χίμπρ.. 
Sppmputth bhbgkgensh mybapph pugSutbpurluiifir fe pryfite 
40 ephzu ρνωφρβν ghhayg ᾽Ρ gfaunmulhupatrfi. 1} anit 
apy Sphltiatacph akp qlisntatin, [4 φινμήβηβ np ορβίμωή 
Seance perp Pep fran σαι ip pages πξηπηβ,. sarenical) τειν aay 
Legenpsppapamph, py pil le jaye ἐμηεω ίγι qdky gp guna 
προ J ὺρ 
ATE STS ESV OEE OLY 


ERRATA IN THE ARMENIAN TEXT 


IN the preceding Armenian text occur the following Errata, of 
which many were detected by a collation of the printed text with 
the MS. in Edjmiatzin :— 


P.1, 1. 15, for wate why read εἴδανε εὐ! — p.17, 1. 9, read 
ἀπ ἡ} Ὁ 10, gfiguig : 13, faueupf: 15, Ebpapy: 21, φαγάηρμ — 
p. 18, 1.17, read Gaewunmughk : Il. 21, 22, and 23, for filutimyp read 
foliuguyp : 23, for quuunncwSsh read swumncwdSh : 25, εἴ yuapy — 
p- 19, 1.17, for uutyp read mnayp — p. 20, 1. 8, read uw: 18, for 
ἄτη με Ἷ, read wh sbi : 29, read wnw bb pape: 31, Spyape 
Eughp — p. 21, 1.11, read upusynn : 13, fg: 17, fork read bgk h: 
25, Supgutky: 27, duylfe: 32, [μη plug — p.22, 1.2, gaqag: 
29, dinwiby - 33, yapdk — p. 23,1. 14, puubugh : 25, Stbpbwt : 
26, uhuwilrifp : 28, dept — p. 24, 1. 7, for he read γε, and for 
ply read puun: 13, read qupgungn τ 33, wpuplp — p. 25, 1. 2, read 
Suypoe[Ipelig, yuku: 25, μξρ — p. 26, 1. το, omit yfomenp 
33; Lh bqkgenju — p. 27,1. 1, appful p — p. 28, 1.6, ya wtbke : 
20, fuouky — Ῥ. 29,1. 4, woqnu: 22, [|pgfl: 24, photucopp — 
p. 30, 1. τ ς pudiny bya yh : 12, gap: 14, wpunfi. — p. 31, 1. 13, app: 
30, nb pi — p. 32,1. 5, ῥαρρπαξ τ 8, pphumack and gpky — p. 33, 
l. 3, αι: 5, Fayafogfut : 12, omit pug. — p. 36, L128 
appeal — p. 39, 1.12, urn. — p. 40, 1. 5; ζω, - 8, after μεῖς. 
pulwt add hk: 28, μα ἐγ, — p. 41, 1. 33, wnmphyag uppagth 
— Ρ. 42, 1. 9, fuipdhutiug : 17, {Xnkgfu: 24, ipapp: 33, aby 
— Ρ. 43, ll. 1 and 14, bagus — p. 44, 1. 21, for wkpt read upbuwt : 
22, Sop —p. 46, 1.17, buypuljaunuuet — p. 47, 1. 18, digfhu: 31 mg., 
unin — p. 48, 1. 13, bagas 


ENGLISH TRANSLATION 


LIST OF SIGNS USED IN THE TRANSLATION 


Square brackets [ ] round a word or words indicate additions 
which are either necessary to complete the sense, or which almost 
certainly stood in the text, but have been more or less successfully 
erased. 

Round brackets (. 1) indicate parallel or more literal English 
equivalents of an Armenian word. 

NOES ss . - τς - indicate total erasure in the MS. of words, because of 
their unorthodox tendency. Three dots are assigned to each word 
erased. 

The rubrics as given in the MS. are printed in italics in the English 
translation. 

Passages which the context shows to be interpolations are asterisked. 

The text references are in the English text and notes merely those 
given in the margin of the Armenian MS. They are often wrong ; but 
I leave them uncorrected, in order that.the reader may have a faithful 
picture of the Armenian text as it stands. In some cases the Armenian 
New Testament, used by the hand which added these references, may 
have had another numeration, than ours, of the verses. 


CONTENTS 


Exordium of Author : 
On Baptism of Jesus Christ . 
Chap. I. On Repentance and Faith as Ἐπ τ- εἶ Bapaad 
Chap. II. On Baptism according to Canons of Jesus Christ. 
Chap. III. On Baptism. Criticism of Greek Rite 
Chap. IV. Against the Orthodox who are inspired by Satan 
Chap. V. On the Forty Days of our Lord and the Temptation 
Chap. VI. On Satan’s Activity against the Apostles 
Chap. VII. On the Adversary of God the Father . 
Chap. VIII. On the Twelve Disguises of Satan 
Chap. IX. On the Same : : : : 
Chap. X. Against the Orthodox. Mostly lost 
Chaps. XI, XII, XIII. All lost 
Chap. XIV. Against the Abuses of the Orthodox Churches. 
Chap. XV. On Baptism of Jesus Christ and of eee 
Partly lost : 
Chap. XVI. On the Three Saemments or Mysteries 
Chap. XVII. On Baptism 
The Ceremony of Namegiving on mieten day after Birth . 
Chap. XVIII. Directions concerning Candidates for Baptism 
Chap. XIX. Same continued. Partly lost . - 
New Title-page and List of Apostles. 
Chap. XX. Confession of Faith, Baptismal Eee sid the 
Qualifications of the Baptiser, who shall be an Elect . 
Chap. XXI. The Rite of Baptism - 
Chap. XXII, part i. Regulations paaecmels Cantidates τε 
Election 
Chap. XXII, part ii. The Rite of Election : - 
Chap. [?], part i. Solutions of New Testament. ane 
about the Virgin Mary : 
Chap. [?] cont., part ii. On Creation of (dacs oad of our 
Lord. Partly lost : 
Chap. [?] cont., part ili, On π΄: οἵ tests Christ aad 
against Saints, ἄς. 
Chap. [3] cont., part. iv. Testimentes of Apostles 0 the ove 


115 
116 


70 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Supplement against Papal Practices 

A Catechism for Christians 

Ch. [?]. Catechism continued. That eee is sec one Judge- 
ment and no Purgatory . : 

On the Consecration of the Flesh aad Bleed 

Exposition of the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist . 

Colophon of the Copyist of 1782 : 


PAGE 


116 
117 


121 
123 
123 
124 


LIST OF ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS USED TO 
RENDER TECHNICAL ARMENIAN TERMS 


“πηι trun =Vardapet or Doctor. 


plunplrw, = Elect. So in Arm. N. T., Acts ix. 15, Rom. ix. 11. 


puunpae[F ft = Election. 


pl Stl pastas =" Universal’ (112. general), epithet of the Church. 


buy puljaunu = Bishop or Overseer. 


“τα αρπε [με Ἷ =Intention (in the Sacrament of Baptism). 


f2feut = ruler. 
f luau bein = =arch-ruler. 


" ghee γε = authority. 


Juul = ‘part, but is translated member in the phrase ‘member of 


the Church.’ 
b- pkg =presbyter or elder. 


res Jin pp =president (Ξ-- ἡγουμένοις in Heb. xiii. 17, which is read 


in Ordination Service in the Key, p. 106). 
pulse pgey = reader. 


fwint=a canon (in tenth cent. Arm.=any direction or rule of 


religious observance). 
hwtotld = direct or ordain, make ordinance. 
funpSacpy = mystery or sacrament (777. thought). 
neuncughs = Teacher. 
wy trun = Chief (in the Ordinal). 


THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION 


Tur Book called the Key of Truth. It was written’ in the era 
of the Saviour 1782, but of the Armenians 1230; and in the 
province of Taron. 


Address to my dear readers. 


Although the throng of distractions, and the temptations and 
storms of the world, and the manifold hindrances, strong to disturb 
our transitory life in various ways,—although these have sorely 
beset us and suffered us not to undertake this necessary work ; 
nevertheless the pressing needs of the Truth of our Lord Jesus 
the Son of the heavenly Father, and zeal of the Holy Spirit [urged 
us|;—yea, and also to meet the prayers of many believers, and 
especially because of supreme necessity—I have cast behind me 
all the affairs? of this transitory life, and have spared nothing in 
order to give unto you, my new-born children of the universal 
and apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the holy milk, 
whereby ye may be nourished in the faith. _ 

Wherefore the Spirit of the Father in Heaven hath taken hold 
of us and inspired us to write this ‘way and truth and life.’ Foras- 
much as for a long time past the spirit of deception had shut 
up the Truth, as our Lord saith: The tares had suffocated it. 
Furthermore it is a little and slender discourse that I have 
published to you, briefly and not opulently. The which ye shall 
read with deep attention, unto the glory of Jesus the Son, the 
Intercessor, and unto the honour of his Father . . .* 

1 i.e. copied. 

2 The Arm. word here, ga/zg, is of uncertain sense: it may mean ‘ events.’ 
In the writings of Ananias Catholicos (tenth century) it bears the sense which 
I here give it. 

2 After Father a word is erased in the MS. which may have been ‘and 
Creator.’ 


72 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


This brief discourse shall ye search and deeply o’er it medi- 
tate. If it please you, then revere it, as it were a voice 
of thunder. 


Concerning the holy baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ, which hath 
been handed down for the sake of those who believe and repent, 
and not of catechumens, or of the unrepentant and of those who 
lack faith, nor either of the impure ; as is manifest tn the holy 
and precious life of John the Baptist, who with his loudly calling 
voice, before Christ our Lord and intercessor, cried unto the 
adult’, saying : 


* Help us, Jesus, and become intercessor for all the faithful, thy 
beloved ones. For with thy sanctifying and illumining words thou 
didst pray to thy Father, saying: Father”, not for these alone do 
I pray, but also for all who have believed in me through their 
word, &c.*° 


ΘΕ Pe 1 


‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ and the 
sequel (Matt. iv. 2). 


So, then, the words of the holy gospel are not hidden unto us; 
but for this reason the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed 
[them] in true argument to his loved Son. For this reason also 
the holy John, greatest among the children of women, called aloud 
saying to the generation of vipers: Repent, O ye that are gone 
astray in sin after sin, thronging thick together, of your evil [deeds]; 
and recognize your original sin, which from of old days lies in you 
stored up*. For this reason St. John in saying this woke up 
their minds to proceed unto the true faith and to know the new 
‘least one of the kingdom ’®,’ the Lord Jesus Christ, the lamb of 
God, who taketh away our sins. Even as John himself, stretching 
forth his holy finger, said: Behold Christ, the lamb of God, which 
taketh away the sins of the world. Again he continues by saying: 
I am not he, but am sent before him. ‘Thus then St. John, firstly, 
preached unto them; secondly, taught; thirdly, induced them to 


* Or ‘completed,’ ‘ fulfilled,’ ‘ initiated.’ An attempt has been made in the 
MS. to efface the word, which however is still clearly legible. 

* In margin John xi. 20 (lege xvii. 20). 

* The paragraph asterisked must be an interpolation. 

* Paul, Hebr. ii. Οἱ 5 Matt. xi. τὰς 


ON REPENTANCE AND FAITH 73 


repent’; fourthly, brought them to the faith; and after that 
cleansed them in the flesh from stains. And then our Lord 
and Intercessor, the Lamb of God?, bestowed on them spiritual 
salvation. Thus the universal and apostolic church learned from our 
Lord Jesus, and continued so to do, as is clear in their Acts and 
especially in the traditions of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which he 
imposes on the universal and apostolic church, saying, Mark xvi. 15: 
‘Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creatures. 
Whoever shall believe, shall be baptized, shall live; and he who 
shall not believe, shall be judged.’ 

Wherefore also our Lord first asked for faith, and then graciously 
gave healing ; and after that bestowed holy baptism on believers; 
but not on unbelieving catechumens. So also St. John and the 
holy Church of our Lord Jesus Christ—so did they continue ὃ to do 
until the assault of Satan. For when Satan was let loose from his 
bonds, then he began to steal away the truth of our Lord Jesus 
Christ and of the holy apostles; and he insinuated his deceitful 
arguments among teachers, [against] whom as the heavenly Father 
enables us, let us with the Keys of Truth* open the door of Truth 
close shut [by them]. Even as St. John opened the door of Truth 
prior to our Lord Jesus Christ, and uttered this command unto 
the adult (ov perfected) souls: ‘ Repent, for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand,’ and the rest. 

Now their repentance lay in turning from their evil works and 
believing in Christ Jesus; in receiving the holy baptism of the 
Spirit of the heavenly Father, and in recognizing their original 
sin, and in their being afflicted because of it, and in their release 
from the fetters of demons, which from their forefathers on had 
been drawn tight round them. Wherefore, when he beheld them, 
the great prophet John in anger roused them, saying, Luke iii. 7: 
‘Offspring of vipers, who showed unto you to escape from the wrath 
to come*®? Do ye therefore bring forth fruits worthy of repentance ; 
nor make beginning to say, We have for a father Abraham. This 


' In margin, John i. 36. 2? John iv. 2. 

3. Against this sentence some words were written in the margin, but have 
been wholly erased. 

4 This seems to be aimed at the pretension of the Popes as the successors 
of Peter to possession of the power of the Keys. There is also an echo of 
Luke xi. 52, but there it is the key of g7és¢s, which the lawyers have taken away. 

5 In margin is written against this and what follows: ‘He permitted not 
this Evil, that they should draw nigh. So also he permits not the Latins, the 
Greeks, and the Armenians.’ 


74 THE “KEY OF PRUGE 


I say unto you, that God is able out of these stones to raise up 
children of Abraham.’ 

But, forasmuch as they had fallen among rugged stones, he 
called them offspring of vipers and asps. [God] also caused 
Jesus to arise from among them, for through him he graciously 
vouchsafes to them salvation. Wherefore also a member’ of the 
universal and apostolic holy church, St. Luke, declares, xiii, 23: 
Of this man’s seed God according to his promises raised up unto 
Israel the Saviour Jesus. So also must we lead the reasonable” 
unto faith, and bring the imperfect unto perfection, and fill those 
who have not the word with the word of Jesus Christ, and soften 
their hearts of stone, and as for the gathered bile of bitterness, 
which from old days hath been stored up, this we cause them 
to vomit up with loathing by the finger of God, and then we give 
them a remedy for sin, whether original or operative in them. 
For as St. John taught first repentance and faith, and after that 
granted baptism and then showed them the way, the truth, and the 
life, saying: ‘ Behold Christ, the lamb of God, who taketh away the 
sins of the world’; so we also must follow in accordance with this 
truth, and not according‘ to the deceitful arguments of the tradition 
of others, who baptize the unbelieving, the reasonless, and the 
unrepentant. These are utterly false and [full of] the deceit of 
demons, and are not godly; whom we will declare as the Holy 
Spirit enables us, 


CHAPTER it 


Concerning holy baptism. About our Lord Jesus Christ, that as 
he laid down canons and precepts, so do we proceed with God's 
help. 


First was our Lord Jesus Christ baptized by the command of 
the heavenly Father, when thirty years old, as St. Luke has de- 
clared his years‘, iii. 23: ‘And Jesus himself was of years about 
thirty, beginning with which® as he was supposed son of Joseph.’ 
So then it was in the season of his maturity that he received 


1 Tita parte 

? In margin a hand writes: ‘And not the unbelieving catechumens who are 
without reason.’ 

* Against what follows is written in the margin of MS. the following: 
‘Latins and Greeks and Armenians perform the three mysteries of the Divine 
with deceitful arguments, as is clear in their works.’ 

4. In margin Matt. iii. 16 and iii. 12. 

5 The Arm. Vulgate wrongly renders ὥν in this passage as ὧν, 


ON BAPTISM 75 


baptism; then it was that he received authority, received the 
high-priesthood?, received the kingdom and the office of chief 
shepherd. Moreover, he was then chosen, then he won lordship ’, 
then he became resplendent, then he was strengthened, then he 
was revered, then he was appointed® to guard us‘, then he was 
glorified, then he was praised, then he was made glad®, then he 
shone forth, then he was pleased, and then he rejoiced. Nay 
more. It was then he became chief of beings heavenly and 
earthly, then he became light of the world, then he became the 
way, the truth, and the life’. Then he became the door of 
heaven, then he became the rock impregnable at the gate of hell’; 
then he became the foundation of our faith; then he became 
Saviour of us sinners; then he was filled with the Godhead®; then 
he was sealed, then anointed’; then was he called by the voice, 
then he became the loved one, then he came to be guarded by 
angels, then to be the lamb without blemish. Furthermore he 
then put on that primal raiment of light, which Adam lost in 
the garden. Then? accordingly it was that he was invited by the 
Spirit of God to converse with the heavenly Father; yea, then also 
was he ordained king" of beings in heaven and on earth and under 
the earth; and all else [besides] all this in due order the Father 
gave ” to his only born Son ;—even as he himself, being appointed 
our mediator and intercessor, saith to his holy, universal, and 
apostolic church, Matt. xxviii. 18: And Jesus came and spake 
unto them and said: ‘There hath been given unto me all authority 
in heaven and on earth. As the Father sent me, so do I send 
you,’ and what follows. Thus also the Lord, having learned from 
the Father, proceeded to teach us to perform holy baptism and all 
his other commands at an age of full growth (or /7. in a completed 
or mature season), and at no other time. As the lamb of God 
directs us after his resurrection, Mark xvi. 15, saying: ‘Go ye into 
all the world, and preach the gospel to all creatures. Whoever 
shall believe, shall be baptized, shall live; but he that shall not 
believe shall be judged.’ 

So, then, hearken unto and receive into your minds the irre- 


1 Paul, Hebr. v, 10. 2 Matt. xi. 18. 5. ΤΆ 1. 22. 
* The Arm. word may also mean ‘ was covenanted.’ δ ObneXc tiie 
§ Matt. xvii. 2. 7 Mark ix. I. 


8. Cp. Geo. Mon. p. 76, xx. εἶτα φής, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿Οκταβίου Καίσαρος, τοῦ 
ἀνεψιοῦ τοῦ ᾿Ιουλίου Καίσαρος τοῦ μοναρχήσαντος, γενέσθαι χάριτι ἢ ἀμοιβῇ τῶν 
πόρων καὶ τοῦ τελέσαι τὴν ἐντολὴν τὸν Χριστὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

9 Luke ix. 28. 1) Matt.iv.1. 1 John xi. 28 and 20. ™ Paul, Hebr. v. 8. 


76 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


fragable decree of our Lord Jesus Christ. For some’? in violation 
of the canons of our Lord Jesus Christ, have broken and destroyed 
the holy and precious canons, which by the Father Almighty were 
delivered to our Lord Jesus Christ; and have trodden them under 
foot with their devilish teaching. These are they who ever and 
always oppose the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ . .. 2 baptizing 
those who are irrational (or without the word) and communicating 
the unbelieving. All these lie under the ban of the Lord and of 
the holy apostles, as is clear in the canons of our Saviour Jesus, 
since he saith to his holy apostles: ‘Give not holiness to dogs, nor 
cast your pearls before swine, lest they forthwith trample it 
under foot, and then turn and rend you,’ and the rest. Do we 
not then know by what authority they do these things, or who 
is their teacher? Manifestly, by the spirit of the adversary® of 
the Father, of God, do they their works; even as the Saviour 
warned us, saying: ‘ Beware of evil-doers,’ and the rest. In saying 
this our Lord showeth us that they are workers of deceitful 
[agents], that is of Satan. Moreover, a member (111. part) of the 
church, St. John passes sentence on such ones, saying* in his 
catholic first epistle, iii, 10: ‘In this are manifest one from the 
other the children of God and the children of Satan” Our Lord 
moreover manifests them when he says of such that ‘ by their fruits 
ye shall know them’ and the rest we need not quote. Thus our 
Lord and intercessor Jesus will give to such as these their reward, 
but such as those he will liberate from the false teacher. 


CHAPTER III 


Let us then submit humbly to the Holy Church Universal, and 
follow their works who acted with one mind and one faith and 
taught us. Now still do we receive in the only proper (/é. 
necessary) season the holy and precious mystery of our Lord 
Jesus Christ and of the heavenly Father :—to wit, in the season of 
repentance and of faith. As we learned from the Lord of the 
universal and apostolic church, so do we proceed: and we estab- 


1 In the margin is written: ‘See the haysmavours (i.e. the synaxaries) and 
in their evil councils that shed blood, and also in the false books of the Latins, 
called Clemens.’ 

2 One word erased in MS. 

2G. Μ. p. 71, vi. ἔχουσι δὲ πρώτην αἵρεσιν τὴν τῶν Μανιχαίων, δύο ἀρχὰς 
ὁμολογοῦντες ws κἀκεῖνοι. 

‘ In margin is written: ‘Those who proceed with deceitful argumentation 
are children of Satan,’ 


ON BAPTISM 77 


lish in perfect faith those who [till then] have not’ holy baptism ; 
nay, nor have tasted of the body nor drunk the holy blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore according to the word of the 
Lord, we must first bring them unto the faith, induce them to 
repent, and then give it? unto them. As also a member of the 
church ὅ St. Luke in the Acts of the Church saith, viii. 12: ‘ But 
when they believed Philip preaching good tidings about the 
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were all 
baptized, men and women.’ And again in the same, vill. 36, 
he saith: ‘As they went on their way, they came unto a certain 
water, and the eunuch said: Behold, here is water; what doth 
hinder me from being baptized? And Philip said unto him, If 
thou dost believe with all thy heart, it is possible. The eunuch 
answered and said: I believe that Jesus Christ is Son of God.’ 
Thus then they first heard a declaration of faith from them and 
then bestowed supreme baptism. For so had they received it 
from the Lord, and so they truly did bestow it on others. But 
some aborted from the gospel and from His church, in oppo- 
sition [thereto], ask of an unbelieving baptismal father, who is 
a false witness brought forward, as it were a profession of faith, 
saying to him: ‘What doth the catechumen seek, O [false] * 
witness?’ And he makes answer and says: ‘Faith, hope, love, 
and baptism.’ How then, O [false*] reader, art thou not ashamed °? 
or how dost thou not blush? so utterly dost thou fail to reflect 
as to thine utterances and thy questions that whatever proceedeth 
from thy mouth, is not ἢ true [but false]” argument, whether the 
answer of the [false] witness or thy question about the catechumen 
to the baptismal father? These are utterly ........ , and as 
our Lord and intercessor Jesus enables us, we will a little open 
your minds, and with God’s aid help to show who is your doctor 
and teacher. 


1 In margin, against this and what follows is written : ‘That is to say, the 
Latins, Greeks, and Armenians, who are not baptized,’ see in Mark xvi. 16. 

2. In margin thus: ‘baptize, see in Mark xvi. 16.’ 

3 In margin is written: ‘About the flesh and blood, John vi. 56, who have 
not eaten and drunk.’ 

* In the MS. a word is half effaced which seems to have been sot = false. 

5 In margin of MS. is written: ‘Bear not false witness. See in the holy 
commandments of God.’ 

§ Correcting np into mg. 

1 Each bracket represents a word or two erased from the MS. I have restored 
the sense of the entire passage. 


78 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


CHAPTER IV 


Doth make manifest and point out the father and teacher of them who 
have believed and with much love fulfil his works, and know 
that it ts God’s work. And God | forbid|* that we should 
believe or bear in our minds such works or canons. 


Our mediator and intercessor Jesus Christ doth direct us truly 
as follows: ‘ Beware of evil workers,’ and the rest. 

Already our Lord Christ passed sentence on the Jews and 
schismatics, when he pointed out their father, saying, John viii. 44: 
‘Ye are from Satan your father, and ye wish to do the desire of 
your father. For he was a murderer from the beginning. But he 
abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When 
he speaketh false he speaketh out of his own, for he is false and 
his father.’ Now, then, ye his disciples, come hither and judge 
of yourselves truly of your falsified (or falsely performed) baptism, 
ye that are wholly mythical and contrary to the holy Gospel of 
the universal and apostolic holy church, that it is not at all to be 
found in the holy and precious Acts of the Apostles or in the holy 
Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ our intercessor. 

By this time, however, true opinion has been banished from 
your minds?; since your father has taught you from of old and has 
bound you to his [false]* gospel. For this reason our Lord most 
explicitly bore testimony, saying: ‘From the beginning your father 
was a murderer,’ and the rest. But now is the word of our Lord 
Jesus Christ found accurate and true, which he directs against that 
evil one. For at the first he was in the form of a serpent and 
spake in the Armenian language unto Eve, saying: ‘Wherefore 
hath God sternly commanded you not to eat of the fruit, and not 
to approach it?* Because God knew that when ye take thereof 
and approach it, at once your eyes will be opened and ye will be 
as gods; therefore he strictly commanded you not to approach 
or touch the same.’ 

But the woman Eva obeyed the father of whom we have spoken® 


1 I restore conjecturally a word erased. The whole title is manifestly 
corrupt as it stands. Perhaps we should add ‘not’ before the words ‘ God’s 
work.’ 

2 Correcting dk png to dbpng. 

’ A word is erased in MS. which seems to have been =‘ false.’ 

* The Armenians still believe that their language was spoken in the garden. 

5 i.e, Satan, father of lies. 


AGAINST THE ORTHODOX, ETC. 79 


and in turn satisfied the mind of Adam. So then, when each had 
persuaded the other, at once they were stript naked of glory and 
were driven from the garden; and then they beheld each the 
other’s nakedness, and were not ashamed, as the Spirit of God 
beareth witness in the sequel. 

Now, however, was rent the veil of their virginity through the 
deceit of the same evil one. Virgin blood escaped for them, 
their perishable flesh was afflicted; the ligaments of God were 
torn asunder, those which he imposed on them; the modesty of 
their countenances was torn away, their reverence was wholly lost ; 
the colour of light of the Godhead faded from their faces; the 
crown of their kingship was taken away, and their newly-fashioned 
palace was lost, fastened about with chains. Nay more, all other 
blessings were lost to them through that same evil one, and he 
made them his slaves. This is why the precept was uttered to the 
Jews who believed not: ‘He that worketh sin, is the slave of sin,’ 
and the rest’. 

And out of such knowledge did our Lord Jesus Christ give 
proof unto schismatics, unbelievers, the impious, liars, the false to 
law (or false examples), false teachers? and false priests, ‘who are 
ever learning, yet never are able to come to the knowledge of the 
truth,’ and the rest. 

Thus our Lord Jesus meant that their father and teacher is 
Satan. Let us next come to the dealings* already alluded to of 
the murderer, who slew our forefather Adam [and Eve], and made 
them and their children, until our Saviour Christ, his slaves and 
captives, and fastened them in his chains and so forth; and so in 
bonds until the advent of the newly-created Adam kept them; 
I mean the prophets, patriarchs, men and women, sons and 
daughters, believers and unbelievers, and all others whom he drew 
in a throng to himself. And so it was that it pleased* the heavenly 
Father in pity [to create]’the new Adam out of the same deceitful 
blood. But [the created]* man Jesus knew his Father, and by 
inspiration of the Holy Spirit came to St. John in all gentleness 
and humility to be baptised by him. And at the same time he 
was crowned by the almighty Father, who said: ‘ Yonder is my 
well-loved son in whom I am pleased,’ as was written above. 


1 John viii. 34. 5.2 ΤΡΊΤΗΣ 111. ἢ: 3. Or ‘affairs’ or ‘ words,’ 

* Luke x. 33 is the reference given in margin of MS. 

5 A word is erased in MS. in both places, which appears to have been as 
rendered. 


80 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Now, when Satan heard this same voice of the Godhead, he 
was at once seized with great fear and terror insupportable ; and 
he quaked and trembled beyond measure, and he divided his evil 
mind this way and that, and said: Whatever can be that voice 
which resounded about him from above? What can be the coming 
upon him of the Holy Spirit? What can be all this greatness, 
all this authority in heaven and on earth? What can be all this 
glory and honour? What indeed all this rejoicing and gladness 
that has accrued because of him? When Satan beheld all this, he 
was in despair, and began thenceforth to make ready the snare of 
his wickedness against our Lord Jesus Christ; and he bethought 
him, by what snare or gin he might catch him, as he had caught 
Adam and the patriarchs and the prophets and all others in order. 
And so he abode in perplexity’ and great trouble until the time of 
the temptation. 


CHAPTERS V. 


Concerning the forty days of our Lord Jesus Christ who entered tn to 
his [maker |? and conversed with him mystertously and received 
commands of his Father, yea and overcame Beliar with his 
hosts (or strength). 


As a member of the universal and apostolic church, St. Paul, 
directs, in writing, to the Hebrews, ch. iii. 1: Wherefore, holy 
brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, contemplate the Apostle 
and High-priest of our Confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to 
his maker, as also was Moses in all his house. Forasmuch as the 
[created|* man Jesus became very faithful to his Father, for this 
reason, the Father bestowed on him a name of praise which is 
above every name‘, that is, of beings whether in heaven or on 
earth or under the earth. He also put all things in subjection 
under his feet, as Saint Paul says elsewhere. When therefore he 
had pleased his increate and loved Father, at once the Spirit led 
him on to the mountain of temptation® and admitted him into the 
mystery® of holy Godship. For forty days and forty nights he 
feasted on contemplation, on fellow-converse, and on the com- 


1 John iii. 35 is the reference in margin of MS. 

2 A word is effaced in MS. It must have been =‘ creator.’ 

* A word entirely obliterated in MS. It must have been asjrusprud- =‘ made,’ 
κτίσμα. 

4 Paul, ad Phil. ii. 9. 5 Mark i. 12 and Hebr. vii. 22. 

® Or render ‘ sacrament’ or ‘ counsel.’ 


ON THE FORTY DAYS FAST 8r 


mandments of the heavenly Father, as is plain to us from the holy 
Gospels; and when his [maker]! took away the feasting and the 
fellow-converse from him, then he hungered. And the envious 
tyrant, seeing that, began to try to ensnare our Saviour with envy 
[of glory], saying?: ‘If thou art the Son of God, speak, that these 
stones may become bread,’ and the rest, Matt. iv. 3. * But Jesus 
made answer and said to that evil one: ‘O ravening lion’, 
O enemy, O monster, O shameless slayer of men, wherefore dost 
thou thus address me with an “‘if*”; dost thou desire under cover 
of the doubt‘ to draw thy snare over me. I am not thy fancy 
which thou fanciest me, O full of all deceit.’ * Jesus made answer 
and said: ‘It is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but 
by every word which goeth forth from the mouth of God.” Now 
have we made clear the meaning of the text which says that our 
Lord Jesus, because of his feasting, his fellow-converse and receiv- 
ing of commands and glory of Godship, hungered not until the 
completion of those days. So then the evil one saw that our 
Saviour Christ was not to be tricked like Eva and Adam with 
a single word; and Satan next took and led him into the holy 
city, and placed him on a pinnacle of the temple and said to him: 
‘ Throw thyself down thence, for it is written that to his angels he 
has given charge concerning thee, and on their hands they shall 
bear thee up, lest thou ever dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus 
again said unto him: ‘It is written that thou shalt not tempt the 
Lord thy God.’ Again Satan took him into a mountain exceeding 
high and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory 
of them. And he said unto him, ‘ All this will I give thee, if thou 
wilt fall down and worship me.’ Then said Jesus to him: ‘ Get 
thee behind me, Satan, for it is written, that thou shalt worship the 
Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve. Yea, and St. Luke 
adds about the evil one, ch. iv. 13, that having completed every 
temptation Satan departed from him for a season. 


1 The word is half obliterated. It must have been as rendered. 

2 Matt. iv. 3. 

3 This apostrophe to the devil, as far as the words ‘ full of all deceit,’ seems 
to be an interpolation. 

4 [Fb ashy in MS. must be a corruption of [δι μα, which means 
‘by an hypothesis, a conjecture or doubt, by an ‘‘if.”? 


82 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


CHAPTERS var 


Concerning the deceitfulness of the evil one, which he practises after 
the temptation of our Lord Jesus Christ continuously until the 
second coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 


The same is set forth by a member of the church, St. Luke, 
ch. iv. 13: ‘And having completed every temptation Satan 
departed from him for a season.’ 


So then, after the temptation of our Lord Jesus, the adversary 
Satan was filled with much wrath, and began from that day to take 
to himself astute instruments of his wickedness and to follow after 
the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ and after all who believed 
on him, as is clear from the words of the holy Gospel, which says 
about Judas the traitor, John xiii. 27: ‘And after the sop, then 
Satan entered into him.’ Therefore Satan, after accomplishing 
his acts of wickedness in Judas—and he procured’ his end and 
made him his servant, forthwith entered into the priests and high 
priests of the Jews. And after them, without waiting, the evil one 
entered into the heart of a damsel and caused her to address 
Peter twice over in order to subvert him and cast him over the 
precipice. Yea and into yet others he entered. At the same hour 
he also confirmed them, in order to secure Peter to himself. How- 
ever, our intercessor and mediator Jesus Christ divined beforehand 
the temptation of the evil one which was in store for Peter; and 
that is why our Lord began by giving great warning to Peter, 
saying, Luke xxii. 31: ‘Saith the Lord, Simon, Simon, behold 
Satan sought to sift thee as wheat, but I made supplication for 
thee, that thy faith may not be wanting, that thou mayest in time 
turn again and establish thy brethren.’ 

And we must now at every hour say this holy and precious 
prayer ...in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may 
relent towards us and intercede for us sinners, to liberate us from 
all evil temptations. Amen. 


Holy Jesus, Holy Lord Christ 
Holy Son of God, for us make intercession’. 


And then say ‘ Our Father,’ and the rest. 
And then*, Satan seeing that his works of wickedness availed 
nothing, hardened and whetted his wickedness still more than 


1 Arm. lit.=‘sustinens,’ which makes no sense. 
2 John, Cath. Ep. ii. 1. 3 Paul, Rom. viii. 34. 


ON THE TWELVE DISGUISES OF SATAN 83 


before, and more and more against the believers and disciples of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and against the apostles of our Saviour, as 
is clear from John vi. 67. 


CHAPTER VII 
Concerning the adversary of God the Father let us also speak. 


‘From that time many of his disciples went back, and did not 
walk with him any more.’ 


Now, the wild beast, of whom I have written above, continued to 
threaten with great wrath the disciples of our Lord; because he 
that was said to be his did not fall a victim to his most evil plan, 
as St. Luke above testified, saying of this very evil one, that he left 
him and went away for a season. So firmly at this season this 
son of perdition, in the hour of the Lord’s temptation, cherished in 
himself the determination to sow his evil longings in the hearts and 
ears of those who should please Him even until the end of the 
world. For this cause our mediator and intercessor never ceases 
to warn us, saying, Luke xxii. 40: ‘And when he came unto the 
place he said unto them, Pray ye that ye enter not into temptation.’ 
So well did our Lord also know the designs of the evil one, and 
therefore expressly enjoined us to watch and pray. And a member 
of the holy universal and apostolic church, St. Peter, in his first 
catholic Epistle saith, ch. v. 8: ‘ Be sober, be watchful, for your 
adversary, Satan, like a lion roareth, walketh about and seeketh 
whom he may devour.’ After this manner must we also be wakeful 
and not asleep in sin. For some, being weighed down with sin, 
have followed this adversary, as is clear in their histories and 
ceremonies, which same we shall expose with the help of the Holy 
Spirit. 

CHAPTER VIII 


Concerning Satan, in what form he has appeared to those who have 
been deceived and become his slaves, this we will set forth. 


At the first this gate of hell took the form of a serpent’; 
secondly, of a raven; thirdly, of a calf”; fourthly, of wild beasts; 
fifthly, of light; sixthly, of women; seventhly, of men ; eighthly, of 
clerics; ninthly, of teachers of the school; tenthly, of apostles ; 


1 Tn margin against what follows this: Birth (or genesis) of Cain, of Exodus, 
in Bible 1 Kings (=Samuel) xxviii. 12. 
2 The word hordoj here used in MS. means either a ‘seal,’ or a ‘calf,’ or 


a ‘monster.’ 
Τὰ ὩΣ 


84 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


eleventhly, of bishops; twelfthly, of monks’. And all other forms 
he assumes as a disguise; and in these same forms he seals* and 
stamps those who love and please him, and guards them for himself 
until the end. For in evil wise doth he chastise himself and all 
his, according to the saying: Their worm dieth not, and their fire 
is not quenched. And may the Lord God Almighty, by the 
mediation and intercession of his loved Son, save and liberate all 
who make true confession of faith from such temptation. Amen. 


And here must we say this prayer before Christ. 


O sweet Lord of mine, Jesus Christ, we worship, we pray, we 
entreat and beseech thine all-powerful Lordship, who art at the 
right hand of thy Father [and maker] ὅ, mediate and intercede for 
us sinners now and in the hour of our death. Amen. 


CHAPTER IX 
Concerning him that disguises himself let us speak. 


Now the teacher and father of schismatics and heretics assumes 
many forms of disguise. But we have only mentioned twelve, in 
order not to be tedious to you, my loved ones. What is the 
reason why the evil one disguises himself? It is this, that by 
means of the disguise he may easily enslave them to himself. For 
this reason he first assumes the form of a serpent, because the 
serpent was full of guile. Secondly of a raven, because the raven 
is a lover of lewdness. Thirdly of a calf, because a calf is a friend 
of mankind and useful to us. Fourthly in the form of wild beasts ἡ; 
because wild beasts are renders of all images. Fifthly of light, be- 
cause light is disperser of darkness. Sixthly in form of maidens and 
of women, because they are too prone to adorn themselves because 
of their hunting after men. Seventhly in form of men, because they 
eagerly assent to things said. Eighthly of clerics, because they lead 
the lives of impostors. Ninthly of school teachers®, because they are 


1 Geo. Monach. 73, x. τὸν διάβολον, μοναχικὰ ἐνδεδυμένον dypia.... καὶ 
διδάσκουσιν. .. παρὰ Tod διαβόλου ὑποδειχθῆναι τὸ παρὰ Tod θεοῦ δι᾿ ἀγγέλου Tots 
ἀνθρώποις ὑποδειχθὲν καὶ δοθὲν ἅγιον σχῆμα, ὕπερ οἱ μοναχοὶ ἐνδεδύμεθα. See 
also the Key, p. 122. 

2 A reference to paedo-baptism. 

8 A word nearly effaced in MS. which was clearly as rendered. 

* In margin of MS. this note: See in the book (or epistle) of expiation (07 of 
purgatory). I do not understand the reference, which occurs again. 

5 In margin of MS. this note: See First of Kings (=Samuel) in the Bible, 
XXVili. 12. 


AGAINST ABUSES, ETC. 85 


teachers of all. Tenthly of apostles, because they are healers of 
soul and body. Eleventhly of bishops and catholici, because they 
are proud and overweening, and in particular traffickers in the 
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ; yea, and though dispensers of 
holy law, yet are also avaricious and excogitators of falsehoods. 
Lastly, they disguise themselves as monks’, because they always 
love herbs and vegetables, yea and also .. .? and they keep fasts, 
because their food grows always in damp places. Wherefore also 
their dwellings are there, for they like it much. 


CHIAPANE Raw 


Concerning the testimonies of the holy apostles, and of writings which 
are external (i.e. gentile or pagan), that 11 2s true that the evil 
one takes the form of ....*. 


First, St. Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthians, demonstrates 
the variety of forms assumed by this evil one, saying, ch. xi. 12: 
‘What I do, that will I do, that I may cut off occasions of them 
who desire occasions; that wherein they glory, they too may be 
found even as we. For such men are false apostles, deceitful 
workers, they fashion themselves into apostles of Christ. And 
no marvel, for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light; 
and it is no great thing, if his ministers also fashion themselves as 
ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their 
Wise AUG eae Geceo oe ΠΕΣ τ δυο ἜΤ} ο OC 


[CHAPTER XIV] . 


Ragen oe, 60% as also our Lord Jesus Christ, having chosen his 
disciples, said: ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel 
of the kingdom to all creatures. Whoever believeth, shall be 
baptized, shall live; but whoever believeth not, shall be judged,’ 
and the rest. Behold, O ye blind, how our Lord deems your 
procedure false and vain, and pronounces you to be deniers of him, 


1 In margin this note: ‘In the lives of the fathers.’ 

2 One word effaced in MS. 

3 Perhaps there stood here ‘ of a monk.’ 

4 Here the folios 30-53", equal to twenty-four pages, are torn out of MS. 
These pages seem to have contained the last part of chap. x, all of chaps. 
xi-xiii, and the first part of chap. xiv. These chapters must have contained 
a free criticism of orthodox abuses. 


86 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


and calls you children of Satan, as was written above. Lo, now 
do ye recognize right well your lying father; recognize of a truth 
your spirit; recognize even your false God. Nay, recognize also 
your teacher; yea, and furthermore do ye recognize the Pope, 
the Catholicos, and your president; and recognize your sham 
Messiah, and the rest. Of whom our mediator and intercessor, 
our life and refuge, doth manifestly speak, saying: ‘And that 
which he speaketh false, he speaketh out of his own, and his father 
is Satan.” Thus our Lord Jesus and the holy universal and apostolic 
church saw and spoke as we wrote above. And now once more we 
write down from the First to Timothy, iv. 1: ‘But expressly doth 
the Holy Spirit say, that in the last times some shall fall away 
from the faith, and the rest. And again in another writing of his 
doth he speak of you that are blinded: ‘ And there shall be lovers 
of self, overweening, proud and insolent. Nay, more, ye have 
confidence in your works, but have denied the holy works of our Lord 
Jesus, and of his sanctified apostles; and are followers of your 
father, the evil one, who gave you his law, namely, to baptize 
unbelievers, to worship images, to make silver and gold into the 
form of an image... .! and to adore the same, to pry into the sins 
of men and women, to explore the same and grant remission, as 
to which our Lord ordained, saying: No one can remit sins, save 
only the one God. But do you investigate all their other words, and 
give praise to the heavenly Father, and to his only-born Son. 


CHAPTER XV 


Concerning the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his elected, 
hallowed, disciples, how they were baptized. 


When Jesus learned that the Pharisees heard that Jesus is 
making many disciples and is baptizing [more] than John. For 
It WAS MOL thAL eis fre een ieee --πτπτπΠὁβᾳΔἍΦἝΨΦΠΤ aa ae 3 


[CHAPTER XVI]? 


.... suffered, I say not you ; but if ye do not repent, ye shall likewise 
be destroyed. 


Thus our Lord Jesus Christ decreed that these three ineffable 
mysteries (07 sacraments) are essential when he spake to those 


1 One or two words effaced in MS. No doubt the words effaced were ‘of 
Christ and of the Virgin,’ or similar. 

2 Folios 56-59 of MS. are lost, including nearly all chap. xv and first lines 
of the title of chap. xvi. 


ON THE THREE SACRAMENTS 87 


who listened’, First he lays stress on and ordains repentance ; 
like St. John, who was mentioned above. Secondly, he grants us 
holy baptism, as he said to Nicodemus”: ‘ Jesus made answer and 
said to them, Verily, verily I say unto you, except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Thirdly, as regards his 
holy, precious body and blood, the Saviour commands us to make 
them (separately) from one another, as is clear from John Vi. 54: 
‘Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat 
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life 
in yourselves.’ 

Moreover, in the same chapter, he again speaks of them 
separately and not as one numerically, v. 56: ‘For my flesh is true 
food and my blood is true drink. Look well at and thoroughly 
scan the holy writ; how that for the sake of the faithful it bestows 
and enforces repentance, baptism, and his holy body and blood. 
And the door of salvation speaks concerning believers and not 
unbelievers who... For in no wise at all do they know God, 
nor is their knowledge of Jesus Christ and of the holy church of 
Christ, that is of the holy Apostles. Moreover, they know not joy 
and sorrow, their father or their mother, and are like brass that 
sounds or cymbals that clash, and so forth. 

In such matters then what is it right for us to do according to 
law‘? Naught but this: when children are born of their mothers, 
then it is necessary for the elect after seven days to proceed to the 
house of the children born, on the eighth day; and he shall com- 
fort the parents with great love and give to them good spiritual 
advice, that they shall train up their offspring in godliness, in faith, 
hope, love, and in all good works, as St. Paul writes in his first to 
Timothy, ch. iv. 7, saying’ as follows: " But from filthy words and 
old wives’ fables hold aloof: but exercise thyself unto godliness, for 
exercise of the body is profitable for a little ; but godliness is some- 
thing profitable for all things, and hath the promise of life, of that 
which now is and of that which is to be.’ Likewise, according to 
the canons® of the holy apostles it is necessary for the parents 


1 Or render: ‘ When he saith what is thus necessary.’ 

2 John iii. 2. 3 One or two words destroyed in MS. 

ες κατὰ νόμον, i.e. according to true ecclesiastical rule. 

5 In margin was a note of four words, all erased save the first, which is 
‘baptism.’ 

6 The writer uses the Greek word merely as=‘ precepts, and canonem the 
verb as=‘I direct.’ The reference is not to the apostolical canons, elsewhere 
condemned in the Key as the Latin forgery of Clemens. 


88 THE KEY ΟΕ TRUTH 


themselves ever and always to give for instruction and study to 
their infant offspring as it were milk; and they shall not be at all 
sparing [thereof]. As also St. Paul, in his first to Corinthians, 
ch. iii. 1, says: ‘ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto 
spiritual, but as unto carnal', as unto babes in Christ. I fed you 
with milk, not with meat; for ye were not able. Nay, not even 
now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal.’ 

So then, for us also and for the parents it is right first of all to 
perform the name-giving of the catechumens, and then after some 
time we cause them to be instructed in good works........ 2 at that 
time whether it be male or female; in order that he or she already 
BiG 6 cic may be baptized. Accordingly, if a male, the child will learn 
to be on its guard against its original desires; while, if a maiden, 
it will be discreet [and shun the sin]* which was manifested in the 
deception of Eva and Adam. For first was Eve dishonoured, and 
then she woke up the mind of Adam. So also must we [awake | 
them in their due seasons, | and tell them] of the curse they inherit 
from their sire ; albeit we now through Jesus Christ lead them unto 
the highest bliss. For this cause St. John, our mediator and inter- 
cessor Jesus Christ, and his holy disciples, first showed the faith, 
then brought to repentance, and last of all bestowed baptism; as 
is clear from the actions of our Saviour Jesus. For he first asked 
for Faith of the blind‘, the halt, the withered, the demoniacs, and 
especially of the lords dead, and said to them: ‘ Do ye believe that 
I am able to do this unto you?’ But they in great fear cried out, 
saying, ‘ Yea, Lord, thou canst.’ And they worshipped him and 
were healed. Also their dead were raised. So must we also per- 
form baptism when they are of full age like our Lord; so that 
they may seek it in faith from us, and that then we may give them 
baptism and perfect blessing. 

Suppose, for example, a man who is caught by thieves or robbers 
on a mountain-top or in a ravine, and they have bound his hands 
and feet fast with fetters and cast him into some gully, surely it is 
necessary for him to struggle to free himself, or is it not? But 


1 In margin is this note: ‘ First it is necessary to perform the name-giving, 
as milk.’ 

? Half a line erased in MS. 

3 Something seems lacking in the text, though the copy marks no lacuna, 

* Concerning the blind, John ix. 40, Luke xi. 27, Mark ii. 5. 

5 The text might possibly =‘ of lords (or masters) of the dead.’ Perhaps it 
is a corruption of something. But a similar expression occurs in Priscillian’s 
works of the patriarchs and prophets in hell. 


ON BAPTISM 89 


they make answer and say that he must work hard and struggle, 
until he liberate himself; for fear lest he fall a prey to the wild 
beasts. Such also is the enactment of our Lord, which he laid 
down in our texts, with regard to repentance. In this very wise 
does he warn us that he who does not believe and repent cannot 
be baptized and be justified, be purified of sin and be freed from 
the fetters of Satan. To this effect our mediator and intercessor 
Jesus Christ delivered the parable which tells of the repentant and 
unrepentant, Luke xiii. 61. ‘A certain man had a fig-tree planted 
in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit from the fig-tree, and 
found none. [And he said to the vinedresser, Behold these three 
years I come seeking fruit thereon and found none.] So? cut it 
down; why doth it cumber the ground? He answered and said: 
Lord, let it alone this year, till I shall dig about and dung it. 
Perhaps it will bear fruit of repentance; if not, after another year 
thou shalt cut it down.’ 

But now it is needful for you, readers, to examine thoroughly 
and understand the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
primarily means repentance, but directly or indirectly graciously 
vouchsafes the parable to those that listen and receive it. Where- 
fore now hath our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the heavenly Father, 
revealed the Way and the Truth and the Life, that those who have 
not faith, repentance, hope, and love cannot be baptized nor draw 
nigh unto the holy flesh and blood of the Son of God. Nay more, 
cannot enter the kingdom of God; as above in regard to the three 
mysteries, he himself bore sure witness, that they cannot enter his 
holy bosom; nay, nor participate in the glory of his heavenly 
Father well-loved. 


CHAPTER XVII 


Concerning Baptism. 


Thus our mediator and intercessor Jesus Christ spake this 
parable as touching believers and unbelievers*. For the kingdom 
of God hath been likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps 
and went forth to meet the bridegroom and bride. Five of them 


1 An entire line effaced in MS. Perhaps the orthodox churches were here 
identified with the unrepentant. 

2 The first part of Luke xiii. 7 has dropped out of MS. by homoioteleuton. 

3 In margin against what follows this note: ‘The bridegroom who is Jesus, 
and the bride the holy church universal. Paul to Ephes. ch. v. 32.’ 


go THE KEY OF TRUTH 


were foolish and five wise. The foolish took their lamps’ .......-. 
eters from place to place, whom shall the Lord God, through the 
mediation and intercession of his Son only born, preserve from the 
temptation of your father and rank them with the holy wise virgins. 
So that they knowing did abide in thy holy and precious word, 
and in no wise erred from thy all-holy tradition?, which thou didst 
vouchsafe unto thy spotless Son, thine only-born. And _ they 
(1). who) in the season of full growth baptize those that repent 
and believe in the name of Jesus Christ, thy loved Son. . .* yea 
and replenish them also with thine holy spirit and strengthen their 
minds and bodies. Because thy Son did truly promise us, saying: 
‘He that believeth shall be baptized, shall live; but he that 
believeth not, shall be judged.’ 


Concerning the giving of a name to the Catechumen. 


We must seven days after the birth proceed to the home of the 
newborn child on the eighth day, and we then begin by saying 
the holy prayer of our Lord Jesus, ‘Our Father.’ 

And then, after saying ‘Our Father,’ the elect one and all the 
congregation with one accord repeat this prayer over the catechu- 
men with faith, thus: 


Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we beg and entreat thee, keep 
this catechumen from evil, and fix thy holy eye upon him, and 
keep him from all temptation of the world; and give him life 
according to thy good will, that he may pass through the 
season of his childhood and become acceptable to thee, to thy 
Son, and to thy Holy Spirit. And bring him through to 
reach holy baptism, and call him under the shelter of the 
wings of thy beloved Son. And also bless, O my Lord and 
God, the catechumen through the mediation of Jesus, thy 
beloved Son. Cleanse him from fleshly pollutions, and day 
by day prosper and increase him in thy grace, and bring him 
unto the full measure of the time of holy baptism, now and 
ever and to eternity of eternities. Amen. 


And then read the words of St. Paul, τ Cor. xiii. 11. 


When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, 
I thought as a child. But when I became a full man, I put away 
childish things. Now we see as if in a mirror by symbol, but 


1 A folio is lost here from MS. containing pp. 66, 67. 
2 Matt. xxviii. 18. 3.1 suspect a word has fallen out here. 


DIRECTIONS FOR BAPTIZING gi 


then face to face. Now I understand in part, but then I shall 
know even as he knoweth me. But now abide Faith, Hope, 
Love, as it were three; and the greatest of these is Love. 

And after the reading of Paul, ’tis meet for the elect one to ask 
the name of the catechumen: ‘By what name do ye desire to call 
this catechumen according to law! and not with a fabulous name?’ 


And then he readeth the holy gospel, Luke ii. 21”. 


‘And when eight days were fulfilled to circumcise him, his name 
was called Jesus, which was so called by the angel before he was 
conceived in the womb.’ 

Glory to thee, King of Glory, that thou hast made this catechu- 
men worthy to be given a name. We beseech thy foreseeing 
majesty, guard him until he attain to the holy birth of the font, that 
we may praise thee, thy Son, and thy Holy Spirit, now and for ever 
and ever. Amen. 

Repeat the ‘Our Father,’ and go to thy house. 

God doth produce the fruits of grace. 


Directions for those baptizing ; of what sort shall they be who 
may be baptized. 


CHAPTER Vill 


But as the Lord commanded in his holy canons, even so shall 
ye baptize those who come unto us. And St. John directed those 
who came to himself to repent. Or as the holy universal and 
apostolic Catholic Church having learned from our Lord Jesus 
Christ did proceed; so also must ye after them do, as we said 
above. For they first taught; secondly asked for faith; thirdly in- 
duced to repent; and after that granted holy baptism to those who 
were of full age, and in particular were cognizant of their original 
sin. Again ye, the elect ones, must observe the utmost care that 
they receive before baptism instruction and training, both of body 
and soul, as St. Paul saith: ‘Practise thyself in godliness.’ So 
must ye without delay bring those who come unto faith, hope, love, 
and repentance, and with extreme care and testing practise them, 
no matter who they be, lest peradventure any one should be an 
impostor, or deceitful, or a wizard, like Simon, in Acts viii. 13. 


1 <Law,’ so used in the fifth to the twelfth centuries, meant the Christian 
Religion as opposed to Paganism. 
2 In margin: ‘Also Luke i. 63.’ 


92 THE KEY OF ‘TRUGTS 


But Simon himself believed and was baptized and rose up 
against Philip in trickery and charlatanry, in order to obtain the 
power of the holy spirit by deceit. So also ye, my loved ones, 
must examine those who come to you, that is thieves and counter- 
feit ones, who come to you clothed as sheep'. As our Lord Jesus 
Christ saith ; Forasmuch as such as these would fain prove them- 
selves holy to you in order to obtain? holiness and the pearl from 
you, and would then trample them under foot ; as Saint Paul com- 
mandeth in his letter to the Romans, saying, ch. xvi. 18: ‘ For such 
as these serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly ; and 
by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the 
sinless ’—whether priests or doctors or deacons’, whether men or 
women, you must not at once baptize them nor communicate them 
until they have been completely tested. 


Concerning those who are being baptized, how they shall come unto 
holy baptism ; and what ts thetr duty and what ts the Sruit they 
shall display, that we should see it and confide in them ; as our 
Lord dtrects us, saying: By thetr fruits shall ye know them. 


CHAPTER XIX 


It is right and fitting that those to be baptized should shed 
bitter tears, like Peter, like Paul, like the harlot Mary, or like 
Simon’s wife’s mother, and others resembling them. For they with 
great contrition received glory and honour from Jesus Christ our 
Saviour, as is clear in the holy gospel, and in the Acts of the 
holy Apostles, and elsewhere. Again, what is meet for those to do 
who wish to receive holy baptism? It is meet that they should 
approach in gentleness, in humility to the elect one, solicit from 
him release from demons, and that they may serve our Lord Jesus 
Christ and his holy church. But then shall the elect one advise 
them, saying: O my little children, forasmuch as ye now desire to 
receive from me holy release, ye must say... τ Ὁ Ὁ * they trouble 
you and will desire to subvert the Gospel of Christ. But though 
we, or an angel come down from heaven, should preach unto you 
a gospel in excess of that which we preached, let him be anathema. 


1 Matt. vii. το. - 2 Reading arnoul for arnel. 

3. Geo. Mon. p. 74, xiv. καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ λοιποὺς ἱερεῖς τοὺς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
ἀποβάλλονται. 

* Two leaves lost in MS., viz. four pages, 74-77, torn out. They probably 
contained a recantation of orthodox errors. 


CONFESSION OF FAITH, ETC. 93 


As I said before, so say I now again, If any man preach unto you 
a gospel in excess of that which ye received, let him be anathema.’ 

Again I write this unto you, dearly beloved, that ye shall dili- 
gently search the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the holy 
Acts of the Apostles, and then condemn us’, lest perhaps ye also 
be punished in season. 


Come my children of the new Zion, 

Take on you the crown of the Lord Jesus. 
Cherish in yourselves each word spoken, 

Take your places in the ranks on the right hand. 
If ye listen unto the Church, 

The infinite God shall save you. 


The Head of all is the Lord Jesus, 
Whom the holy Paul? doth confess, 
And the head of Christ is God and Light. 


Acts; ch. 1. vs. 13. 


Peter and Jacob, 

John and Andrew, 

Philip and Thomas, 
Bartholomew and Matthew, 
Jacobus of Alpheus, 

And Simon the Zealot, 

And Jude of Jacob ; 

Also Paul, the vessel of Election. 


These are the Church Universal, 
nor is it Peter alone. 
Church universal, 
Which was foreshadowed in the Ark of Noe. 
Through it have many souls been saved, 
Which were lost through the wiles of devils. 


CHAPTER Xe 


Concerning what 11 ts meet for the elect one to speak or what he 
giveth them to say. It is meet for the elect one to give them 
also this profession of faith to repeat, as follows : 


We confess and believe that there is one true God, of whom 
our Lord Christ speaketh, John xvii. 3: This is life Eternal, that 


1 i.e., in case we have taught you anything contrary to the holy gospel. 
2 Ephes. v. 29. 


94 THE KEY OF fRUGE 


they should know thee the only true God? and him whom thou 
didst send, Jesus Christ. Again we confess and believe in Jesus 
Christ, [a new creature and not]? creator*, as St. Paul saith to the 
Hebrews, ch. iii. 2: He is faithful to his creator, as was Moses in 
all his house. Again ye shall believe in the intercession of our 
Lord Jesus Christ and of no others. Ye shall believe in the holy 
apostles and in all who are the Universal Catholic Church, and are 
not Latins, Greeks, or [ Armenians ]*. 

Furthermore ye shall believe in Jesus Christ, that by his father’s 
command he is to come to judge the quick and the dead®. 


And when they shall have finished the confession of faith before 
the elect one, and at the same time before the rulers, then shall the 
elect one say this prayer before the face of the heavenly Father : 


The Prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of the 
Fleavenly Father. 


I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast 
hidden this from the wise and learned and hast revealed it to babes. 
Yea, Father, for so it was pleasing in thy sight. All things have 
been given unto me by my Father; and no one knoweth the Son, 
but only the Father; nor doth any one know the Father save the 
Son, and to whom the Son shall desire to reveal. Come unto me, 
all ye that are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 
Take up my yoke on you and learn of me, for I am gentle and 
lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke 
is easy and my burden is light. 


And when they have finished the holy prayer of our Lord 
Jesus Christ— 

Now then, let us proceed to consider the baptizer, what he must 
[be], or how he must live, or in what manner he shall bring unto 


1 Perhaps the Paulicians interpreted these words to mean the God in heaven 
as opposed to the demiurge who ruled the visible world— the god and lord of 
this world,’ as Satan is elsewhere styled in the New Testament. 

2 There are words here effaced in the text which appear to be as translated. 
Mr. Alex. Eritzean of Tiflis, independently examining the MS., deciphered the 
words partly erased in the same manner. 

’ Geo. Mon. p. 76, xx. καὶ οὐ μόνον κτίσμα τοῦτον ἐπικαλεῖς κατὰ τὸν 
ματαιόφρονα “Apeov, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων αὐτῶν μετα- 
γενέστερον. 

* The word is erased in the MS. 

5 Geo. Mon. p. 75, xx. ἐπίβαλε ov ὁ Χριστιανός. Kal γενήσεται δευτέρα 
παρουσία τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κριθησόμεθα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ; 
καὶ ὁμολογήσει τοῦτο ὁ βέβηλος. 


OF THE PERSON BAPTIZING 95 


himself the repentant, or in what form minister to him. Wherefore 
we declare all this unto the person baptizing and to the person 
being baptized with God’s help, in detail. 

Now therefore it is necessary for the baptizer to be elect according 
to the words of the heavenly Father to his beloved Son, Luke ix. 
35: He is my Son Elect. Hear ye him. And secondly, he shall 
be gentle and lowly according to the command of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, which he gave by the mouth of his holy evangelists, 
John xv. 16 and 19, and xi. 28. Also in Matt.: ‘ Learn of me, 
for I am gentle and lowly in heart,’ and the rest. 


Now the teacher [shall be] wise, obedient, modest, sober, virtuous, 
god-fearing, loved by all, himself a lover of all the faithful. But 
let him not be superstitious, a babbler, a liar, an inciter of evil. 
Neither shall he be dissolute or vicious, nor shall he be deceitful 
and an impostor, nor shall he be fond of low gain nor a lover of 
pleasure. 

Let him then not be contentious and choleric; nor let him be 
a wine-bibber and a drunkard. Neither shall he be fond of glory 
or a taker of profits. And he shall not be a taker of gifts and 
greedy, nor a thief and a robber; nor shall he be a murderer 
and a grinder of the poor. Let him also not be weak in faith, or 
perverse, litigious. Let him not be a deceiver of men and women. 
Let him not be double-tongued, an inciter unto evil; let him not 
be a calumniator of others. Let him not be proud and selfish, let 
him not be a lover of silver or of any of this world’s riches. 
Let him not be scarred with impurity, or a buffoon. Let him not 
‘be an adulterer and effeminate. Let him not be blind or halt, let 
him not be deaf or mute. Let him not be tall to excess above 
all men, nor let him be shorter than all men. And thus the 
[apostles] ordain by the Holy Spirit in their canons. And in par- 
ticular the holy Apostle Paul directed Titus, saying, ch, i. 7: ‘For 
the bishop (or overseer) must be blameless, as God’s steward ; not 
self-willed, not soon angry, not quarrelsome, no striker, not greedy 
of filthy lucre. But hospitable, a lover of good, sober-minded, 
just, holy, temperate. To be a protector of the faithful word of 
the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in soundness of 
doctrine and to convict the gainsayers.’ 

Again, St. Paul writes to Timothy thus, ch. iii. 1: ‘Faithful is 
the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop (7 overseer), he 
seeketh a good work. The bishop (or overseer) must be without 
reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, 


96 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


orderly, hospitable, apt to teach. No brawler, no striker; but 
gentle. Not contentious, no lover of money. For of his own 
house he shall be a good supervisor, and shall have children who 
are in subjection with all gravity.’ 


Thus then the elect one must beware of all evil thoughts 
according to the Apostle Paul, according to the command he gave, 
saying: Be ye imitators of me, as also am 1 of Christ. I praise 
you for that you have all my riches. Ch. xi. τὸ of First to 
Corinthians. 

Behold and see, my godly ones, how the Apostles of our Lord 
Jesus Christ enjoin us. And if ye resemble not them, then ye 
(MS.=we) cannot any more become elect and presidents of the 
faithful, and so forth. 


Concerning them who are baptized, how they shall come unto the 
elect one and be baptized by him. 


CHAPTER XXI 


Now then we say on this matter: Do ye be submissive to the 
law and have an ear to the canons, which direct how the novices’ 
shall go and present themselves to the elect one. For in gentleness 
and humility [shall they go], as our Lord Jesus Christ in gentle- 
ness? and humility stood before St. John the Baptist. So also this 
new-born shoot must come unto the elect one. And forthwith 
the elect one shall rise to his feet and say: ‘Come unto me all ye 
that are troubled and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take 
my yoke upon you and learn of me, For I am gentle and lowly in 
heart ; and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy 
and my burden is light’ Matt. xi. 28. And the penitent, with 
much eagerness throwing himself at the feet of the elect one, with 
supplications and tears, saith: O thou, elected by God and by 
Jesus Christ, I pray and beseech thee, set me, who am not worthy, 
free from the bonds of Satan. 


This before the people he shall openly say. 


Next the elect one, with benign glance and great love asketh 
him, saying :— 

My little child, thou who wishest to be released from the bonds 
of the devils of Satan, What fruit of absolution hast thou? Tell 
it to us before the congregation. But the penitent, if he have 
learned and received the perfect faith, with unfeigned trust, shall at 


1 Or ‘the newly presented.’ 2 Matt. iii. 14. 


THE RITE OF BAPTISM 97 


once come on his knees into the midst of the water and say with 
great love and tears to the elect one as follows :— 


First do I faithfully believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, as the holy 
apostles believed, in Matt. xvi. 13, and as in Acts viii. to v. 18: 
‘And he said unto them, But ye, whom do ye say that I am? 
Simon Peter made answer and said to him, Thou art Christ, the 
Son of the living God, and the rest. John vi. 69. And in 
particular the apostle Paul, making profession saith: ‘The head 
of all is Christ, and the head of Christ is God,’ 1 Cor. xi. 3. As 
also is clear in the holy gospel saying, John xvii. 3, ‘This is life 
eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God, and him 
whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ. So do I make confession 
and believe, serve, and worship God the Father, and the Son, 
mediator and intercessor, and the Holy Spirit, the dispenser of 
grace to us who believe. 


And then, as he that has believed completes his holy profession 
of faith, the elect one instantly takes the water into his hands, 
and looking up to heaven (saith),—also observing in (or toward) 
himself the mystery (07. sacrament), the form (or figure) and the 
intention,—shall directly or indirectly empty out the water over 
the head saying: In the name of Father and Son and Holy 
Spirit is baptized this man or woman—mentioning the name—by 
the testimony of the congregation here present. 

And then he reads the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ :— 


Matt. ili. 13: ‘Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan 
unto John to be baptized by him.’ Mark i. 9: ‘And it came to 
pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and 
was baptized by John in the Jordan. Luke iii. 21: ‘ And it came 
to pass in the baptizing of all the people, that Jesus was baptized 
and was praying; and the heavens were opened,’ and the rest. 
John i. 29: ‘On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him and 
saith,’ and read also the rest in full over the person baptized. 


Next the elect one receives before him the novice; but the 
novices shall in fear and trembling on their knees draw nigh, 
naked, bending low their heads and with firmest faith, bearing in 
mind the release from Satan. But the elect one takes water in his 
hands, and with mystery’ (ov sacrament) with word and with act, 
shall fully empty out the water over one head (at a time) and say 


1 In margin of MS. the following note: ‘One before the Father: one before 
the Son ; one before the Holy Spirit he shall fill.’ 


M 


98 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


first, In the name of the Father ; and he shall empty out the water 
on the head three times [and after that] in the name of the Son 
and in the name of the Holy Spirit . . .* in union, 

Because the Father giveth release from the bonds, the Son 
giveth hope to sinners, and the Holy Spirit is love in the hearts of 
those who listen, believe, are baptized, and the rest. 


Fe shall keep to this figure. 


For a certain king releases certain rulers from the prison of sin, 
but the Son calls them to himself and comforts them (111. gives 
hope) with lofty (7. great) words, and the holy spirit of the king 
forthwith comes and crowns them, and dwells in (or with) them for 
ever and ever. Amen. 


Read thou the holy gospels. 


‘Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John to 
be baptized by him. But John would have hindered him saying, 
I have need to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? 
Jesus made answer and said unto him: Suffer it now, for thus it 
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 
And when he was baptized Jesus went up straightway from the 
water; and behold the heavens were opened unto him; and he 
saw the spirit of God, descending like a dove; and it came upon 
him. And behold there was a voice from heaven which said: 
He is my beloved Son, in whom 1 am well pleased.’ 


He ws in the presence of the Father. 


We thank, we magnify and glorify thine Almighty Fatherhood, 
that thou hast made worthy thy servants in the hour of baptism, 
who have been baptized in the name of thy Son, the only-born. 
And now we adore, we ask and beseech of thee, Holy Father, 
preserve them from the wiles of devils and free them from the 
temptation of evil ones. Seal, Holy Father, their hearts, their 
souls and bodies with the precious flesh and blood of thine only- 
born Son, now and evermore. 


1 Two or three words are destroyed in MS. The lacuna should probably be 
filled up somewhat as follows: ‘Of the Holy Spirit, separately, and not in 
union.’ For the note in the margin proves that the three successive handfuls 
of water were regarded as symbolic of the distinctness of the three Persons. 
The erasure proves that the Paulicians anyhow gave another interpretation 
to the baptismal formula than do Trinitarians. 


—————————— Sr rl 


SE EE 


THE -RITE OF BAPTISM 99 


Next ye shall read the Acts of the Apostles, ii. τ. 


‘And when the days of Pentecost were completed, they were all 
with one accord together. And there was on a sudden a sound, 
coming from heaven, as of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house 
in which they sat. And there appeared unto them divided tongues, 
as of fire, and there sat one on each of them. And all were filled 
with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the 
Spirit gave them utterance.’ 


Gospel of Mark, i. 9. 

‘And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from 
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 
And forthwith, as he went up out of the waters, he saw the 
heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit of God, like a dove, descend- 


ing from heaven, [and a voice came out of the heavens]|* and said, 
Thou art my beloved Son; In thee am I well pleased.’ 


And then we say this prayer before the Son of the Heavenly Father. 


We adore, we entreat and beseech of thee, Christ, Son of God, 
receive these among the number of thy holy disciples, and send 
the Spirit of thy Father into their hearts, for thou didst promise 
them, saying: If I go not, the Holy Spirit will not come unto you. 
But now with ardent love, falling on our faces, we beseech thee in 
behalf of thy servants, who now have been baptized into thy holy 
name, and now anxiously await the faithful promise of thy Lord- 
ship, [made] unto their hearts, and unto all thy servants who have 
believed in thee. 


And next thou shalt read Paul to the Galatians, iii, 24-29. 


‘So that the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, 
that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we 
are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through 
faith [in Christ Jesus]. For as many of you as were baptized into 
Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, 
there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and 
female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ’s, 
then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.’ 


From the holy gospel of Jesus Christ according to Luke, ili. 21-22. 


‘Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, 
Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was 
1 Omitted in MS. through homoioteleuton, 

M 2 


100 THE KEY “OF TRUE 


opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily form, as a dove, 
upon him, and a voice came out of heaven which said, Thou art 
my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.’ 


Also this further prayer in the presence of the Holy Spirit. 


Blessed art thou, Spirit of the Heavenly Father, forasmuch as 
thou wast made by the Father, and coming, didst give unto our 
Lord Jesus Christ authority over all flesh; and didst make him 
king and head of beings in heaven and in earth and under the 
earth; even as St. Paul, filled with thee, declareth. Furthermore, 
thou didst divide the fiery tongues unto the holy Apostles and 
unite them unto the one word, and didst make them the Catholic 
Church of the Son of God the Father. And now with all 
reverence do we entreat thee, that thou come down into these, and 
fill the hearts of the baptized, who have now been baptized into 
Christ Jesus. Lest peradventure the unclean spirit approach them 
that have believed in the only born Son of the heavenly Father. 
Cleanse their spirits and minds, and make them a temple and 
dwelling-place of the Father increate, of the Son our intercessor, 
now and ever and unto eternity of eternities. Amen. 


Lection from the Acts of the Apostles, viii. 26-40. 


‘But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and 
go toward the south along the way that goeth down from Jerusalem 
unto Gaza: the same is desert. And he arose and went: and 
behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under 
Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, 
who had come to Jerusalem for to worship; and he was returning 
and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 
And the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this 
chariot. And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the 
prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And 
he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he 
besought Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the chapter of 
the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep 
to the slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so he 
openeth not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgement was 
taken away: his generation who shall declare? for his life is taken 
from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, 
I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or 
of some other? And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning 
from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. And as they went 


CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION IOI 


on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, 
Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. 
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both 
went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he 
baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Holy 
Spirit came upon the eunuch, and an angel of the Lord caught 
away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and he went on 
his way rejoicing. 


And then thou shalt read the holy gospel, John xx. 


From the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to 
John. 

Or thus begin by saying: The holy gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ is that which John saith: 

‘When therefore it was evening on that day, the first day of the 
week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples of Jesus were 
met together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their 
midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had 
said this, he shewed unto them his hands and his side; and the 
disciples were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said to them 
again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so 
send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed into them, 
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever 
sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye 
retain, they are retained.’ 

Once more it is meet before all prayers to say the ‘Our Father.’ 

And then give the Peace in these words: May the Peace of the 
Father, the Peace of the Son, and the Peace of the Holy Ghost, 
come unto you. Amen. 

HERE ENDETH THE FORM OF BAPTISM. 


And concerning the order of laying on of hands. 
CHAPTER [XXII]. 


Jesus, Son of the Heavenly Father, help us and intercede for us, 
and for all the faithful, for thou didst promise with thy faithful 
word: John xvii. 20, ‘But not only for them do I pray, but also 
for all them that believe on me through their word.’ 


102 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Again let us speak about that man, and say how it is right to 
elect him, and then to lay hands (i.e. ordain) on him; lest by 
chance we be found guilty according to our Lord Jesus Christ and 
the holy apostle Paul, who declares and directs in his First to 
Timothy, v. 22: ‘Lay hands hastily on no man, nor become 
partaker of the sins of aliens,’ and the rest. But also our 
intercessor and mediator Jesus Christ, hindering us, saith: ‘Give 
not holiness to dogs, and cast not your pearls before swine.’ 
Behold, it is thus incumbent on the elect one and the rulers 
not to give the authority to such a man’ For it is a fearful 
and awful thing to lay hands upon such as these, and to become 
partakers of the sins of aliens, and so forth. Therefore it is 
necessary for us to be greatly on our guard against them, and 
avoid participation in their sins; so far forth as it is no divine 
command, either of Christ the elect or of the universal and apostolic 
holy church (to do so). Let us further consider the words, the 
actions, and the canons of our Saviour, yea, and also of the elected 
holy apostles, who were taught by the high priest Jesus, and 
handed down unto us their tradition®. As St. Paul in his Epistle 
to the Galatians, i. 11, says: ‘I make known to you, brethren, as 
touching the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not 
according to the mind of man. For neither did I receive it from 
men, nor was I taught it by any one, but from the revelation of 
Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. xv. 1: Eph. iii. 3. 

Behold then, according to these words, these blessed ones 
received it from Christ; and Christ our Saviour received it from 
the Almighty Father, as he himself insisted, speaking in Matthew *: 
‘And Jesus came and spoke to them, and said: Unto me hath 
been given authority in heaven and on earth. As the Father sent 
me, so send I you.’ Also Mark xvi. 15. Accordingly our Lord 
Christ was first elected by the Father‘ and received the grace of 
the heavenly Father, as saith Matthew, chap. xii.: ‘Behold my 
servant, whom I elected, and my well-beloved in whom my soul 
was well-pleased. I have laid my spirit upon him, and he shall 
declare judgements unto the Gentiles.’ ‘And when Jesus was bap- 
tized®, he went up straightway from the water, and lo! the 
heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God 


1 i.e. to an untried man. 


4 Cp. the thirteenth-century Cathar ritual in the New Testament of Lyons, 
ed. Clédat, p. xvii. 

“*Ch. xxviii. 18: 

4 Matt. iii. 17; Mark i, 11; Luke iii. 22; 18, 5 Matt. iii. 16. 


CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION 103 


descending like a dove and coming upon him, And lo, a voice 
from heaven which said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am 
well pleased.’ Mark x. 10, Luke iii. 22, and John i. 32. And 
the rest ye shall read in holy writ, that first was Jesus elected by 
the Father, and the apostles by him. Accordingly it is right for 
this man to be elected by rulers and then by bishops. Now the 
President must first test him in gentleness and humility, and see if 
he has perfect wisdom, love which is chief of all, prudence, gentle- 
ness, humility, justice, courage, sobriety, and eloquence. He must 
also possess in very deed continence, patience, moderation, pastoral 
care, love of the poor, pity and good conduct of life and all other 
good works, and repentance along with quick conscience. ΑἹ] this 
the teacher must test and ascertain; and only then shall it be 
incumbent on the Vardapet to approve him. But unless a man 
has borne these thorough tests, it is not right for the President 
or rulers to lay their hands on his head. Since our Lord and 
the universal and apostolic holy church inhibit us from laying 
our hands upon such ones and from becoming sharers and par- 
takers of their sin. Even as our mediator and intercessor, Jesus, 
warns us against it saying: ‘Beware of evil workers, who come 
to you in sheep’s clothing, but within are ravening wolves,’ and 
so forth. 

See and mark, my loved ones, how the Lord forbids us to lay 
hands on such as these, that is on false prophets, deceivers, dis- 
obedient, foolish, and so forth. Again, it is not meet for you, 
God-loving rulers and arch-rulers, to rashly lay your hands on 
such men; as St. Paul in his canons doth enjoin upon Titus, 
saying: ‘For the bishop must be blameless,’ and the rest. And 
accordingly the elect one must be on all sides spotless, and 
must be holy. Furthermore, he shall be shrewd and singleminded, 
as He that was elected by the Almighty Father saith: ‘Ye shall 
be shrewd as the serpent and singleminded as the dove’ and 
the rest. 

Look ye and diligently examine, lest perchance ye violate these 
holy canons. Nay, more, may the Almighty Father give us his 
holy grace through the intercession of his beloved Son, and may 
he open the eyes of our souls unto the detection of such deceivers ; 
that is to say, of thieves, robbers, murderers, sons of fornication, 
adulterers, detractors, evil speakers, scurrilous, foul-mouthed, blas- 
phemers, quarrelsome, effeminate, paederasts, swinish in their lives, 
fond of strife, irreconcileable, slayers of the innocent, timid, 


104 THE KEY OF DRUGE 


sluggish, dissolute, niggardly, slow to learn, foolish, ecstatic, super- 
stitious, without faith, lovers of self, overweening, supercilious, 
double-faced, greedy, spotted with evil, graceless, libidinous, false 
witnesses, lovers of glory, lovers of silver, counterfeits, undiscerning, 
lovers of self, respecters of persons, longers after evil, privily- 
minded, lightly believing in false prophets and false doctors, in 
false preachers and false books ; who in every season and sundry 
trust not to the knowledge of truth, as the universal and apostolic 
church enjoins us to do. These must be elected with much testing, 
as also the Head of the Church enjoined above, saying: ‘ Beware 
of evil workers,’ and the rest. 

Therefore, upon such as the aforesaid it is incumbent on us not 
to lay our hands, nor become sharers and participators in their 
sins. Further, we may say on this matter: Is there really found 
such an one as is free from all these vices ? or was there ever any- 
one who, having had these vices, has turned away from them and 
renounced them’? Yes, there is indeed such a man, my beloved, 
as has been a hundredfold worse than these, and who yet, when he 
reached the time of election, then recovered himself, and fully and 
completely repented and received the grace of the heavenly Father ; 
as a member of the universal and apostolic holy church, St. Luke, 
declareth unto us, saying in Acts vii. 60, ‘And Saul was consent- 
ing unto the slaying of Stephen.’ Again, ch. ix. 1, we read: ‘ But 
Saul, yet filled with threatening and slaughter of the disciples of 
the Lord, went unto the high priest and asked of him letters to 
Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any who were of 
that way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to 
Jerusalem,’ and the rest. 

Behold and mark, my godfearing ones, how Saul goes forth, and 
then how he repents, and turns to Christ our Lord, and receives 
the Holy Spirit and is ranked in the ranks of the universal and 
apostolic holy church ; and becomes a vessel of election, establisher 
of the truth, pride of the faith and rampart of the holy apostles who 
were proclaimed by Christ the universal and apostolic church. 

And this is the meaning of the blessed St. Paul when he said 
that where sin aboundeth there shall also abound grace. Again, 
he elsewhere saith, alluding thereto: ‘ While I was a child I spoke 
as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man full- 
grown, I put away the things of childhood.’ 


1 The Armenian of this sentence is ambiguous. I render as I think the sense 
must be, 


CANDIDATES FOR. ELECTION 105 


Thus, my beloved, although it is natural for men to fall, is it not 
also natural for them to rise again and stand up straight? Let us 
also hold to this figure of our Lord, in which, dealing with us sin- 
ners, he compares us to the prodigal Son, who came to his father 
and said: Father, I have sinned unto heaven and before thee, and 
am no more worthy to be called thy son, but make me one of thy 
hired servants. But his father, in compassion, fell on his neck and 
kissed him and said, This is my son who was dead and is alive 
again, was lost and is found. And again he repeated in his great 
love and said, ‘Bring forth his robe and put a ring on his hand 
and kill for him the fatted calf, for he is my son who was dead 
and is alive again, was lost and is found.’ So now do ye under- 
stand the decree of our Lord and of the holy apostles, which 
with true award they decreed for us and explicitly enjoined on all 
the faithful. 

Let us return to the sequence of our direction, already expressed, 
that it is necessary for that man to be on all sides free from 
blemish, before we give him authority (or rule) of priesthood, of 
episcopate (or overseership), of doctorate, of apostleship, of presi- 
dency, and of election. For all these are one and the same thing ; 
nor are they one greater or lesser than another. But they are on 
an entire level, as our intercessor Jesus enjoined on his holy elect 
ones, saying, Luke xxvi. 26: ‘But be ye not so, but he that is 
great among you shall be as the least, and the master (/7. leader) 
as the servant, and the rest. In this wise is authority one, as our 
Lord enjoins saying, Matt. xvi. 15, where he promises to give 
authority to all his apostles. Likewise Matt. xviii. 18, he says the 
same, and also gives complete authority ~to all his elect ones: 
‘Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be 
bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall release on earth, shall 
be released in heaven.’ Furthermore, John xx. 23, ‘Unto whom 
ye shall remit sins, it shall be remitted unto them ; but whoseso- 
ever ye shall retain, it shall be retained.’ 

Accordingly it is thus that Latins, Greeks, and Armenians alike 
speak in the hour of their releasing (? = absolution). Whether 
catholici or bishops (or overseers) or vardapets (i.e. doctors) or 
their priests, they all alike, as suits the occasion, say : ‘I also in due 
order, with priestly authority, release thee from all participation in 
sin, and the rest. 

Behold, my beloved ones, how they also bear witness that 
authority is one, and is not greater or less. For one was the Holy 


106 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Spirit which came down upon the universal apostles and made 
them the universal and apostolic Catholic Holy Church. And we 
believe in their words, profession of faith, confession and works, for 
ever and ever unto eternity of eternities. Amen. 


HERE ENDETH THE DIRECTION. 


Concerning the laying of hands on the elect one and of their 
calling unto this grade. 


Now after he hath been truly approved by the President, by the 
rulers and arch-rulers, then shall the elders lead that man before 
the President in great repentance and in tears, 

And the rulers and arch-rulers shall begin by saying, as they 
bring him, this prayer unto the bishop (or overseer), saying as 
follows: Holy Father, we humbly? pray thee, entreat and beseech 
thee out of thy great love, to lay hands on this man for the true 
guidance of our spirits. Amen. 


And the Bishop’, in turn, saith unto the Rulers as follows: 


Ye then, who desire to have him as your good shepherd, have 
ye indeed diligently tested him, as also I have tested him with great 
humility and love? 

But they make answer and say to the Apostle of our Lord Jesus 
Christ :-- 

Yes, our venerable father; for we have fulfilled all the commands 
of your Lordship with the help of God. 

And again the elect one saith to the rulers and to all that 
listen: ‘I am without responsibility (07 innocent) in this particular, 
and ye are responsible.’ 

And then the elect one begins in the very words of our Lord 
and Intercessor by asking of the reader as follows, Matt. xx. 23 :— 

‘Art thou then able to drink the cup which I am about to drink, 
or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am about to be 
baptized ?’ 

And he gives answer with ready will and love, saying to the 
President: Yes, holy father, for I, thy servant, take on myself 
scourgings, imprisonment, tortures, reproaches, crosses, blows, 


1 Lit, falling on our faces, 2 Or overseer, as usual. 


THE RITE OF ELECTION 107 


tribulation, and all temptations of the world, which our Lord 
and intercessor and the universal and apostolic holy Church took 
upon themselves, and lovingly accepted them. So even do I, an 
unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, with great love and ready will, 
take upon myself all these until the hour of my death. Amen. 


And then the Chief receiveth him before him, and, himself sitting 
down on the throne, shall begin by first saying: ‘In the name’ of 
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ 

And then he shall repeat the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

And after that he shall begin to read the holy Gospel, Matt. i. to 
verse 16; and also Acts vi. to verse 8. 

And then do thou read Acts i. to verse 5, ‘Our Father, which 
art,’ and the rest. 

Next again the Gospel of Matt. iii. to verse 17: also Acts xiii. 
to verse 6. 

And after this the bishop calls the rulers unto himself, and 
the rulers having come shall place their hands upon the reader ; 
but the bishop takes the holy Gospel into his hands, and gives it 
into the hands of the reader, and then asks his name, gently and 
humbly, saying : 

‘What is thy name, my little son beloved?’ 

And he makes answer and says :— 

‘The name of thy servant is Peter’.’ 

But the apostle shall change his name in accordance with the 
Gospel, and after changing the name of the supplicant *, he then 
gives him authority, saying as follows: Take to thyself authority of 


1 1 read, ‘In the name. The Armenian omits ‘in.’ 

2 Geo. Mon. 72, x. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἅγιον Πέτρον; τὸν μέγαν πρωταπόστολον 
πλέον πάντων καὶ δυσφημοῦσι καὶ ἀποστρέφονται, ἀρνητὴν ἀποκαλοῦντες αὐτόν. 
Ibid., p. 78, xx. 6 σοὶ τῷ μιαρῷ ἀποτρόπαιος 6 κορυφαῖος τῶν ἄλλων Πέτρος. 
And cp. Rituel Provengal (at end of the Provengal New Testament of Lyons, 
edition L. Clédat, Paris, 1887, p. xii, French translation): ‘Et puis que 
le croyant fasse son melioramentum (i.e. acte de contrition) et prenne le 
livre de la main de l’ancien. Et l’ancien doit l’admonester et le précher 
avec témoignages convenables. Et si le croyant a nom PIERRE, qu il lui dise 
ainsi: “‘ PIERRE, vous devez comprendre que, quand vous étes devant léglise 
de Dieu, vous étes devant le Pére et le Fils et le Saint Esprit. Car Véglise 
signifie réunion, et 14 ot sont les vrais Chretiens, 1a est le Pere et le Fils 
et le Saint Esprit, comme les divines écritures le démontrent. Car Christ 
a dit dans l’évangile de Saint Matthieu (xviii. 20).”’ Cp. also p. xvi of the 
same: ‘PIERRE, vous voulez recevoir le baptéme spirituel, par lequel est donné 
le Saint Esprit dans l’église de Dieu, avec la sainte oraison, avec Vimposition 
des mains des “‘ bons hommes.”’ 

3 Mark iii, 11 (sec) ; Luke vi. 14. 4 Or ‘of the one asking or seeking.’ 


108 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


binding and loosing the sons of men in heaven and on earth, Matt. 
xvill. 18, and John xx. 23. 

Here, in giving authority, there shall instantly be read the holy 
Gospels. After the reading of them it is incumbent also to read 
the Gospel of the birth, Luke ii. 13, and Matt. ii. as far as verse 13. 

But after the reading of the holy Gospel of Luke, and the passage 
is that in which the angels sang their songs, it is meet that the 
bishop, the newly elected one, the rulers, arch-rulers, and all the 
congregation should sing: ‘Glory in the highest to God, and on 
earth peace, to men good-will.’ 


This much and no more shall they say: 

King of kings, Lord and Creator of all beings, who didst create 
our first father out of clay and our first mother out of his rib; but 
they did not patiently endure thy holy commandment, but were 
deceived by the deceits of the Devil (Zt. slanderer). Yet never- 
theless out of thy divine compassion thou didst create the new man 
Jesus, as the holy Paul saith: By man came death and by man 
salvation. Thus also the...... 1 Christ Jesus kept thy ineffable 
commandments and bruised the head of thine adversary; as saith 
thine only-born Son himself, thy well-beloved, John xv. 10: ‘If ye 
keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have 
kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.’ 

Thus did our head Christ keep thy true words and the command- 
ments of thy Lordship, and paid in full our debts and received 
from thee blessedness unending. And now we humbly? supplicate, 
entreat, and beseech thee, accept our prayers through the inter- 
cession of thine only-begotten, and through the mediation of his 
holy baptism and of his life-giving precious body and blood, and of 
his holy insupportable sufferings. Bestow thy holy grace on this 
one, who now is come and asks of thee the grace of thy holy 
authority, and that he may be ranked along with thy holy Son, 
according to that which is said, that ‘ wherever I shall be, there also 
shall be my worshipper.’ 


And after that the rulers shall take their hands back and, lifting 
up their arms along with the bishop, shall say this prayer all together 
over the newly elected one, as follows : 


Our life and refuge, our mediator and intercessor. Now head of 
beings heavenly and earthly and of those under the earth, door of 


: Two words are effaced in MS. They were probably ‘the new created 
man. 


2 See note 2 on p. 94. 


THE RITE OF ELECTION 10g 


heaven, way of truth, and life of those who rightly believe in thee. 
Since thou didst promise with thy faithful word, saying: ‘He that 
cometh unto me shall not remain in darkness; and him that is 
come unto me 1 will not cast out.” Now therefore, forasmuch as 
this man, who hath been baptized in thy holy name, and hath been 
elected by the Holy Spirit of thy Father, doth now earnestly await 
thy faithful promise [which said]: ‘Ye shall abide in the city of 
Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high.’ Now 
therefore, falling on our faces at thy feet with ardent love, with 
bitter tears, we beseech, entreat, and beg of thee, send into him the 
grace of thy Father, that it may come and adorn his spirit, mind, 
and body, and make him resplendently pure from all evil thoughts. 
And bestow on him thy Spirit, which thou didst receive from the 
Father in the river Jordan. Strengthen him and open his mind to 
understand the scriptures and to take up the cross in love; that he 
may follow after thee now and ever and unto eternity of eternities. 
Amen. 


And then the bishop shall blow three times in the face of the newly- 
elected, saying: Vow may the breath of our Lord Jesus Christ open 
thy mind, O beloved little son of mine, and strengthen thee tn thy 
works. Amen. 


And then ye shall read the holy promise of the archangel which 
was made concerning Jesus. Luke i. 26-38 :— 


‘ Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God 
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to 
a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the 
virgin’s name was Mary. And he came in unto her, and said, 
Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee. But 
she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what 
manner of salutation this might be. And the angel said unto her, 
Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And 
behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, 
and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be 
called the Son of the most high: and the Lord God shall give 
unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over 
the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no 
end. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing 
I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, 
the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most 
High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be 


110 THE KEY OF “TRUTH 


born of thee is holy, and shall be called the Son of God’. And 
behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in 
her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that was called 
barren. For no word from God shall be void of power. And Mary 
said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according 
to thy word.’ 


And next read thou tn the Acts of the Apostles, ii. 1 as far as 
verse 21 tnclusive: 


‘ And when the days of Pentecost were now complete, they were 
all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven 
a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the 
house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one 
of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began 
to speak with divers tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance, 
Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from 
every nation under heaven. And when this voice was heard the 
multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every 
man heard them speaking in his own language. And they were 
all amazed and marvelied, saying, Behold, are not all these which 
speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own 
language, wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and 
Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappa- 
docia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt 
and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, 
both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them 
speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. And they were 
all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What 
meaneth this? But others mocking said, they are filled with new 
wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice 
and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye 
that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear 
unto my words. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; 
seeing it is but the third hour of the day; but this is that which hath 
been spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall be in the last days, 
saith God, I will pour forth of my spirit upon all flesh: and your 
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men 
shall see visions, and your, old men shall dream dreams: yea and 

‘ On verse 35 the following note in margin: ‘If it be the forty days of 


holiness, the newly-elected one reads the holy gospel and testament, and at once 
he receives the Holy Spirit 


THE RITE OF ELECTION III 


on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days will I pour 
forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will shew 
wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath ; 
blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into 
darkness, and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord 
come, that great and notable day. And it shall be that whosoever 
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ 


And then say this prayer. 


I thank thee and magnify thee, Heavenly Father, true God, who 
didst glorify thine only-born beloved Son with thy holy spirit, 
Also the holy universal and apostolic church of thine only-born 
Son didst thou adorn with divers graces. And now adoring, we 
pray thee, merciful Father, send on this thy newly-elected one 
thine infinite grace ; that coming it may fill him and be to him 
a rampart and armour against thine adversary, who for ever and 
continually desires to ensnare those who have believed on thine 
only-born. Now therefore, lay thy holy right hand upon thy 
servant here elected, and keep him from evil and from temptation 
of the world by the intercession of thy true Son, now and ever 
and to eternity of eternities. Amen. 


And then thou shalt read the holy Gospel, John xx. 19, 
as far as verse 24: 


‘When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the 
week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were met 
together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, 
and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had said 
this, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples 
therefore were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said 
to them again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, 
even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed into 
them, and saith, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye 
forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained.’ 


And also the precept of St. Paul shalt thou read, Heb. xiii. 17-21, 


‘Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them : for 
they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account 
to you; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for 
this were unprofitable for you. Pray for us: for we are persuaded 
that we have a good conscience, desiring to live honestly in all 


112 THE ΤΕΥ “OF ΕΗ 


things. And I exhort you the more exceedingly to do this, that 
I may be restored to you the sooner. Now the God of peace, 
who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep 
with the blood of the eternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus Christ, 
establish you in every good work to do his will, working in us that 
which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom 
be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.’ 


And then say this prayer before Christ. 


Bread of angels and of the faithful, mediator and intercessor of 
us sinners, Lamb of God, Jesus, help us and especially this thy 
newly-elected servant, whom thou hast joined unto the number 
of thy loved disciples. Establish him on thy Gospel vouchsafed to 
thine universal and apostolic Church, the sure and immovable rock 
at the gate of hell. And bestow on him a goodly pastorship, 
to tend with great love thy reasonable flock; even as St. Peter, 
a member of the universal and apostolic holy Church, saith in his 
catholic Epistle, ch. v. 2: ‘Tend the flock of God which is among 
you.’ Forasmuch as through thy calling he hath been joined with 
thy saints, keep this thy servant with thine elect; that no unclean 
spirit of devils may dare to approach him. Fortify thine elected 
one in the work which thou didst commit unto all who are thine 
elect and who have believed in thee. Amen. 


Then after this prayer do thou give the peace to all the people; 
and then the bishop shall take the newly-elected one to himself, 
and instruct him with great love, and give him to read the holy 
Evangel’ ever and always. Yea and also the holy testament of 
the universal and apostolic Church; in order that thereby he 
may in fullness receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, during 
a space of forty days. 


CHAPTER [? ]. 


Explanations of important sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ, to which 
the holy evangelists bear witness. Matt. i. 25. 


‘And knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn Son 
..” And after eight days his name was called Jesus, which 


* Geo. Mon, p. 74, xvi. Προσκυνοῦσι δὲ τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐαγγέλιον. Ibid. p. 70, 
ii. ἔσχον διδάσκαλον Kwvorartivoy ... οὗτος γὰρ παρέδωκε τὰς αἱρέσεις avTod . 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον ἐγγράφως, ἀπαράλλακτα μὲν τῇ γραφῇ... 
νομοθετήσας αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦτο" μὴ δεῖν ἑτέραν βίβλον τὴν οἱανοῦν ἀναγινώσκειν, 
εἰ μὴ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον. 

? A few words effaced here in MS, 


SAYINGS ABOUT) THE VIRGIN MARY Τῷ 


name the angel Gabriel revealed in the time of her virginity.’ See 
Luke i. 26. 


For this reason the holy evangelists and the sanctified apostles, 
yea, and our Lord Jesus Christ, declare Mary, prior to the birth, to 
be a virgin, but after the birth call her a wife and utterly deny her 
virginity, as in the aforesaid the Son of God asserts in John il. 4. 


In Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine: ‘ What have 
I to do with thee, thou woman, for not yet is my hour come?’ 


When in the hour of the passion he was raised on the cross, he 
said to his mother: ‘Woman, behold thy son. And to his loved 
disciple he committed her, saying: ‘Behold thy mother.’ 


There are many other testimonies in the holy gospel and 
testament of the apostles; and we state but a few in order to help 
the truth, and not out of grudging. For example, that is clear 
which in the hour of the passion of the Lord Jesus the Evangelists 
insist upon, saying’: ‘There were also there women, to whom 
were come Mary Magdalene, and Mary, mother of Jacob and 
Josia.’ And in another place, namely in the country of Jesus, 
they give proof by saying in astonishment: ‘Is not he the son of 
the carpenter? is not his mother called Mary*? and his brethren 
are John, and José, Simon and Judas, and his sisters are with us.’ 

Again, St. Luke ὃ expressly denies blessedness to her, and assigns 
it to those who have believed in Jesus Christ, ch. xi. 27: ‘And 
whilst he was discoursing* to the multitude, a certain woman raised 
her voice out of the multitude, and said: Blessed is the womb that 
bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck.’ But Jesus in return 
took away, in the hearing of the multitude, blessedness from his 
mother, and gave it to those who do and keep his word. 

And also John the Evangelist most openly shows their unbelief, 
when he relates of the brethren of the Lord Jesus (that they said 
to him), Get thee hence, that thy disciples also may see the works 


1 Matt. xxvii. 56. 2 Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3. 

3 Geo. Mon. seems to glance at this very passage as well as what precedes, 
p. 78, xxi. τὰς δὲ eis τὴν ἀειπαρθένον καὶ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς θεοτόκον Μαρίαν 
βλασφημίας ὑμῶν ... οὐδὲ ἡ γχῶσσα ἡμῶν ἐκφῆναι δύναται ... ἐπιτιθέναι ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ῥητοῦ τοῦ φάσκοντος" ἀπηγγέλη τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ 
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [σου] ἐστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν σε θέλοντες" ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς 
αὐτούς" μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν of τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούον- 
τες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν. Cp. Tertul. adv. Marc. ἵν, 26, and August. c. 
Faustum, xii. 8. 

melee χὶ. 2}. 


114 THE ΚΕΝ ΘΕῈ TRUE 


which thou doest, for his brethren also did not yet believe on him’. 
And in particular the vessel of election and member of the universal 
and apostolic holy church, St. Paul saith of our Lord Jesus: ‘He 
was born of a woman, and came in under the law*.’ 

Thus, previously to Mary’s bearing the new-created Adam, 
Gabriel the archangel pronounces her a virgin and greets her; but 
after the birth the same angel does not call her a virgin. As is 
clear in the holy Gospel*, from what he says in the dream to 
Joseph: ‘Arise, take the child and his mother, and flee into 
Egypt’; and again, after some time, the angel of the Lord appeared 
in a dream, and said: ‘Arise, take the child and his mother, and 
depart into thy land.’ 


Concerning the Creation of Adam and of our Lord Jesus Christ. 


First, the heavenly Father, the true God, fashioned (or created) 
the heavens with all that belongs thereto, and the earth with all 
its kinds; he equipped them. As is clear in the inspiration of 
God (i.e. in the inspired Scriptures). Again, the benevolent God, 
seeing that all things were good, was pleased to make a king 
over all beings; and especially because of the most evil slanderer 
(i.e. the Devil), as is proved by the sense of the word which says: 
‘Let us make man in our image and likeness.’ Thus in the 
twinkle of an eye he, by a single word, fashioned heaven and earth. 
But also by a single word he fashioned (or created) the old 
Adam, made him king and ruler of all creatures. Wherefore Satan, 
beholding the paramount kingship of Adam, was envious, as 
divine writ says in reference to him: ‘ By the envy of the slanderer 
death came into the world.’ Moreover, St. Paul says* that by man 
came death and by man resurrection. And he also repeats this, 
when he says: ‘As by Adam all men died, so also by Christ shall 
they be made alive.’ Now at the first we said that the Almighty 
Father with a single word fashioned (or created) Adam out of clay, 
and Eva out of his’rib; like unto bimin.:. 2... 2... cae 
3 Sle’ esheets areas 5 said, Father, into thy hands I commit 
my spirit®. Also he prayed for his enemies: Father, forgive them, 
for they know not what they do. And again he says’ to Mary 

1 John vii. 3. 5. (0515 ὅν: ἥ- 

Ss Matt. ii. 13. i Corexye ele 

° One folio is here torn out of MS., pp. 126-7. It is just the passage so lost 
which must have contained the Paulician account of the body and generation 


of Christ. 
6 Luke xxiii. 46. Τ᾽ 7όδη τ᾿ τ: 


ON INTERCESSION, ETC. 115 


Magdalen, his disciple, after his resurrection, I am not yet ascended 
unto my Father and unto your Father, and to my God and to your 
God. And again the holy universal Church with one mouth 
declareth: that Christ died and God raised him from the dead. 
There are also many other [testimonies], which we have not 
cited. 

Concerning the mediation’ of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not of 
any other holy ones, either of the dead, or of stones, or of crosses? 
and images. In this matter some have denied the precious 
mediation and intercession* of the beloved Son of God, and have 
followed after dead [things] and in especial after images, stones, 
crosses”, waters, trees, fountains, and all other vain things; as they 
admit, and worship them, so they offer incense and candles, and 
present victims‘, all of which are contrary to the Godhead. All 
these things our Lord put under his feet when he said®: ‘I am 
the door. If any one shall enter with me, he shall go out and shall 
go in, and shall find pasture,’ and the rest. 


And again, he saith®, I am the way, and the truth, and the 
life. 


And he doth furthermore say’: I indeed am the resurrection 
and the life. 


Again he saith *: I am your mediator and intercessor. 

As he saith to Peter in Luke®: And I have prayed to the Father 
in thy behalf. 

But he also said to his apostles: And I will pray to the Father, 
that he may give to you another Comforter. 

And also to us who believe he saith: Not for them do I pray, 
but for them also who believe on me through their word. 

He repeats, saying’: Father, not for them do I pray, because 
thou hast taken them out of the world, but that thou mayest guard 
them from the evil. 


1 Luke xxii. 31. 

2 Geo. Mon. p. 72, ix. βλασφημοῦσι δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον σταυρόν. 

3 John xvii. 5, 17, 20. 

* The custom of offering victims in church and eating their flesh continues in 
Armenia and Georgia until to-day. Thus Gregory of Dathev, c. 1375 (see 
Bodl. MS. Arm. e. 11, fol. 13 verso), in his manual condemns the Mahometans 
because they refused to eat of the Armenian victims. 

δ. ΠΟΙ x. 9: ® John xiv. 6. 7 John xi. 25. 

§ Matt. xxvi. 53. 5. Talles Sean, Sie 20 John xvii. 20. 

M John xi. 15 (szc). 

N 2 


116 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Concerning the testimonies of the Holy Apostles. 


First did St. Stephen behold the intercession of our Lord Jesus 
Christ at the time of his stoning, as St. Luke relates in Acts vil. 55: 
And he saw the heavens opened, and Jesus standing on the right 
hand of God. 

And St. Paul saith?: So now who is he that shall condemn? 
Surely Jesus Christ, who died, yea rather, was raised indeed, and 
is on the right hand of God, who also is intercessor for us. 

Again he saith®: For there is one God and one mediator also of 
God and men, the man Jesus Christ. Of whom St. John, in his 
catholic epistle, speaks*: Little children, this I write unto you. 
Sin not; and if any one sin, we have with God an intercessor 
Jesus Christ, the righteous and the spotless. And he is the 
expiation and remission of our sins; and not of ours only, but also 
for all those who rightly believe in him. Yea, and the Intercessor 
himself took his holy precious body and his holy unblemished 
blood, He and no other. 


Supplement to the foregoing words. 


Again I ask you, gainsaying Popes and your followers—you 
who baptize them that are catechumens still in their mother’s 
wombs by all sorts of means, though they have not yet come into 
the world, or are born dead; some of them in the womb and some 
in death, ye baptize conditionally *. All these things are devilish, 
and not divine, 

For the God of all who bestows such gifts of grace on his loved 
ones, since he is himself sincere, has also bestowed gifts of grace 
which are sincere and true. Hence it is clear from your deeds, 
how ye sometimes are convicted by the truth, and are forced to 
speak the truth, as when ye say: Let no catechumen, nor any that 
is wanting in faith, nor any one that is unrepentant or impure. It 
is not meet that he should draw nigh to the holy divine mysteries. 

Now if ye do not hearken unto God, Christ, and the universal 
and apostolic holy Church; ye should anyhow obey your own false 
testimonies and promises. For there are three divine mysteries, 
which he proclaimed from above to his only-born Son and to 
St. John the great prophet, First, repentance. Second, baptism. 


' Rom. viii. 34. 27 Dimi Ἐς 

$ Hebr. vii. 26; 1 John ii. 1. 

* The same word théakay is used here as in ch. v. p. 15. The reference is 
not to the practice of baptism for the dead, but to that of baptizing corpses. 


A CATECHISM FOR CHRISTIANS ΤΠ 


Third, holy communion. For these three he gave to the adult, 
and not to catechumens who have not repented, or are unbelieving. 

And again I ask you, violator of ordinances, about this cate- 
chumen of yours, when did he ask or where did he petition the false 
witness, saying: I ask from thee faith, hope, love, and all other good 
works, from a false witness? 

For if your catechumen asks from his tenderest age, then why 
does he not ask it direct from you, violators of the ordinances? 
So then your very falsehoods serve to show forth like the sun the 
truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. And your whole custom is found 
to be false and mere deceit; of which our Lord Jesus Christ 
primarily saith: ‘And what he speaketh false, he speaketh out of 
his own, and his father is Satan,’ John’. 


Instruction of a Christian. 


If any one desire, my little children, to acquire the orthodox 
faith, it is first necessary for him to learn fully the necessary 
questions and the confession. And then he shall go and ask for 
holy baptism; and the precious body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ shall he eat and drink, at a time when he hath believed, and 
not during his unbelieving time as a catechumen. 


Concerning the Christian Doctrine. 


CHAPTER [?]! 


Question. Art thou a Christian ? 

Answer. Yes, 1 am a Christian by the grace of Christ. 

Q. How are we to define a Christian? 

A. Thus—one who knows our Lord Jesus Christ, what he is, 
and keeps his commandments. 

Q. What is the command and precept of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which we keep? 

A. That which our Lord prescribed to his disciples and _ his 
faithful, saying: ‘If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. 
As I also have kept the commandments of my Father’ 

Q. How many are the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ ? 

A. These. First, Hope. Second, Repentance. Third, Faith. 
Fourth, Baptism. Fifth,Communion. Sixth, Love, which is chief 
of all. 


1 The chapter and verse are not filled in. 


118 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Q. What is Christ, and as what must we know him and believe 
him to be? 

A. Even as the universal and apostolic holy Church believed, so 
must we also believe. 

Q. How did the blessed apostles believe? Teach us. 

A. As St. John the Evangelist showeth, saying: ‘We have 
believed and know that thou art Christ, the Son of God, who wast 
to come into the world.’ 

Q. So then, as touching those who baptize catechumens, is their 
baptism true or vain? 

A. It is vain and a fraud. For catechumens have not repent- 
ance, have not hope, neither have they the holy faith. Wherefore 
their baptism is not true and is not salvation. 

Q. Then whose baptism and communion is valid? 

A. Their holy baptism and communion only is valid who have 
original and operative sin. 

Q. Surely catechumens who are [newly] born of their mothers 
have not original and operative sin? 

A. Yea, my children, they truly have not such sin, these cate- 
chumens. 

Q. Hast thou then firm ground in holy scripture as touching 
catechumens ἢ 

A, Yes, venerable father, I have true witness from the holy 
Gospel, which our Lord enjoined on the holy Church, saying after 
his resurrection: ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel 
to all creatures. He that shall believe and be baptized shall live ; 
and he that believeth not shall be judged.’ Behold, my reverent 
one, first did he enjoin faith, repentance, and then he gave the 
command of holy baptism. 

Q. How many, my little children, were there who fasted the 
forty days and forty nights, until came Christ, the Son of God? 

A. Four! are those who so fasted. Enoch and Elias who, 
fasting, were raised to Heaven. Secondly, Abraham, who received 
the promise of Isaac from the angels of God. And thirdly, Moses’, 
fasting, received the ten commandments. 


* Petrus Sic. col. 1297, quotes a letter of Sergius to Leo, a Montanist, 
in which reference is perhaps made to these four prophets as follows: ἀλλὰ 
mapakarovpa (so read for παρακαλέσαι), ὥσπερ ἐδέξω ἀποστόλους Kal προφήτας 
οἵ τινές εἰσι τέσσαρες, δέξαι καὶ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, iva μὴ Onpiddwros γίνῃ. 

* Even the Manicheans respected the ten commandments, but not as specifi- 
cally Moses’ revelation, but as ‘ olim promulgata per Enoch et Seth et caeteros 
eorum similes iustos.’ See August. c. Faust. man. xix. ch. 3. 


A CATECHISM FOR CHRISTIANS 119 


Q. Christ our Lord and Intercessor, did he really fast forty days 
and forty nights like them? 

A. Yes, he fasted, and from his Almighty Father received the 
kingship over things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. 

Q. Wherefore then did not God Almighty make one of the 
patriarchs king and head of all? Did they not also fast those 
days? 

A. Although they fasted, yet they were not....... 1 as was our 
Lord Jesus Christ. But they were conceived in original sin, they 
had original sin and operative. But our mediator Christ was not 
conceived in original sin, and had not original sin or operative like 
them, as St. John the Evangelist made clear saying, ch. i. 13: 
‘Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
the will of man, but of God. And the word? became flesh, and 
dwelt among us.’ 

Q. Did then God converse with our Lord Jesus Christ, or 
not? 

A. Almighty God conversed with his only-born Son ever and 
always, as St. John the Evangelist bore witness, saying, It 
thundereth*®. But some of them said, An angel hath spoken unto 
him. But our mediator and intercessor himself confirmed it, that 
the Father conversed with him, saying: Not for my sake came 
this voice; but that ye may believe in me. And again he saith: I 
from myself speak nothing; but what I have heard from my Father, 
that will I make known unto you. 

Q. How many are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which 
save man? 

A. Four are they which save man. First, Repentance. Second, 
Right Faith. Third, Holy Baptism. And fourth, the holy precious 
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Q. (and A.) So then confirmation, the order of priesthood, last 
unction, and marriage, are not salvation of our souls. But are 
unnecessary and not obligatory. Even as the holy Church saith: 
‘If he giveth his virgin in marriage, he doeth well. And if 
they give her not in marriage, they do still better.’ Thus shalt 
thou regard confirmation, order of priesthood, and last unction, 
which are not obligatory nor the door of salvation. 


1 One or two words effaced in MS. The words so effaced may have implied 
that Christ did not take his flesh from the Virgin. They were anyhow heretical. 

2 MS. reads ‘ dy the word.’ I have corrected. 

3. John xii. 28, 29. 


120 THE “KEY OF TRUE 


Q. For how many reasons did the God of all send into the 
world the new Adam his beloved? 

A. For four necessary things. That is: First, because of 
original sin, Second, on account of operative sin. Third, for 
sake of mediation, reconcilement, and intercession, which now is’. 
Fourthly, because of the end of the world, the Father Almighty 
sent his only-born Son, and appointed him to judge the quick and 
the dead. 

Q. O venerable father, is it right? for us to have the intercession 
of saints, or is it not? 

A. We hold that their intercession is not right or essential. For 
they need the intercession of the living, not the living theirs’*. 
As is clear from the sacramentaries of the heretics and schismatics, 
who at the hour of mass (1. oblation) rightly here say*: ‘Of all 
whether priests, or deacons, or scribes, that is apostles, saints, 
prophets, doctors, martyrs, patriarchs, monks, virgins, recluses, 
and of all saints, let there be, we pray, commemoration in the holy 
oblations.’ Yea, and priests and scribes with one voice say out 
loud: ‘Remember, O Lord, and pity.’ Also he that offereth 
saith: ‘Give rest to the souls of the saints,’ and the rest. 

Q. What further reason is there why they cannot make inter- 
cession? 

A. Although they suffered for the love of Christ, still they have 
not glory, nor release, nor the crown of the kingdom of God®. 
As the holy Church of Christ makes clear when it says: ‘The 
saints received the promise of life eternal, they obtained promises, 
stopped the mouths of lions®,” and the rest. Furthermore our 
Lord Jesus, in giving his promise, spake to his loved ones thus: 
‘Wheresoever I shall be, there shall also be my worshipper.’ 
Again he also says: ‘Ye cannot now come after me; but then 
ye shall have come after me.’ And also he points out the place to 
them, saying: ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house.’ 

See, my reverent children, how hath been made clear the mind 


1 Or perhaps trans.: ‘ in the present.’ 

? In the margin is written: ‘ And when our Lord Jesus shall be glorified, 
then shall he crown his saints.” Paul, 2 Thess. i. 10. 

* Geo. Mon. p. 72, x. τοὺς προφήτας καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἁγίους ἀποβάλλονται, ἐξ 
αὐτῶν μηδένα τινὰ ἐν μέρει τῶν σωζομένων εἶναι λέγοντες. 

* Cp. Brightman, Zzturgies (tn the Lituxgy of the Armenians), pp. 440--443. 
There the prayer ‘ Remember, O Lord, and have pity,’ is said by the priest 
privately, and not by the deacons as well. 

5 Paul, 1 Thess, iv. 16. 6 ἜΓΟΙΣ ΧΙ, 25. 


CATECHISM CONTINUED T21I 


of the holy Gospel and of the holy church. Those who are filled 
with hope, and not with glory and crowns, are all saints’, as our 
mediator and intercessor Jesus directs, saying in his ineffable 
judgement: ‘Come ye blessed ones of my Father, be ye heritors 
of joy without term or end.’ In the same way? shalt thou regard 
the sinners who are tormented in fire unquenchable. 

Furthermore, my beloved little son, take to thee the word of the 
great prophet Moses; which tells how Pharaoh was very wrath with 
Joseph, and took him and put him in prison; and some of the 
imprisoned saw a dream and were afraid. So then in the middle 
of the prison they told their dreams to Joseph. But our forefather 
Joseph by the spirit of God told them their dreams, saying to the 
one: My good man, behold on the morrow Pharaoh the king 
crowneth thee with great glory. But to the other he said: Thou 
also on the morrow shalt be punished by the king. See, my 
reverent child, that one with the promise of Joseph was crowned, 
and the other with his words was punished. Of like purport is 
the parable of our Lord Jesus Christ which tells about Lazarus 
and Abraham. 

Furthermore the holy church of Christ tells how he went and 
preached to the spirits which were in prison, for the preaching of 
our Lord Jesus Christ signifies this, namely that he gave promises 
and great hope to the spirits of patriarchs and prophets, saying, 
My Father will crown you in the end of the world. But to the 
sinners he preached, saying: The Father Almighty will chastise 
you with heavy chastisement. 


Concerning the judgement that τς one and not two. 


CHAPTER [?] 


Question. How many judgements of God are there as touching 
the dead and the living ? 

Answer. There is but one judgement and not two. 

Q. Then, if there* is one judgement of God which he holdeth 
through Christ; why do some gainsayers say that there are two 
judgements and not one—the one, they say, private and apart, and 
the other universal. 


1 This sentence may also be rendered : ‘ The saints are all filled with hope 
and not,’ &c. 

2 In marg. of MS. this note: ‘Mark the parable of the Lord Jesus, Luke 
xvi. 19, where he speaks of the living.’ 

3. This note in marg. of MS. : ‘See in the book of Theophilus,’ 


122 THE ΚΕΝ OF ‘TRUTH 


A. They thus speak lies merely because their father is Satan. 
Even as our Lord says, that which he speaketh false he speaketh 
out of his own, and his father is Satan’. 

Q. I pray thee, venerable father, to give us instruction as 
touching how many judgements there be. 

A. I tell thee that the universal and apostolic church confesses 
one only, saying that man dies once and after that is judgement. 
This is the meaning of the holy church, that as for man death 
comes once, so also will his resurrection and judgement be one 
and not two. 

Q. Then did Christ, our Lord and intercessor, truly know the 
wickedness of their minds, who have established false and mon- 
strous laws, or did he not? 

A. Yes, venerable father, he truly knew, and therefore said: 
‘ Beware of evil workers,’ and ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ 
who are disciples of lies and deceit, and not of my truth. As the 
holy church expressly declareth. 

Q. Did our Lord Jesus Christ really know the day of judgement 
or no? 

A. Since the heavenly Father, true God, did not reveal that day 
to his beloved Son; as he saith concerning the end of the world: 
‘No man knoweth it, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son; but 
the Father alone. Further he saith: ‘ Out of my own seif I speak 
nothing ; but whatsoever command my Father gave me, that I 
speak. Behold, my reverent one, how Christ, the Son of God, of his 
own self could not say aught, unless his Father revealed it to him. 

Q. But forasmuch as our Lord Jesus Christ could not by him- 
self without the ordinance of God know the day of judgement, how 
do some gainsayers declare, in opposition to the truth of the Son 
of God, that there is a separate judgement and place of expiation 
for sinners? 

A. Because, as I at the first told thee, they are the heritors of 
their father’s deceit; and through the spirit of that same evil one 
they ever and always ordain false laws and false precepts. Behold, 
my loved one, their teacher, who has disguised himself? in the form 
of a monk® and preached unto them the torments of hell, in order 
to ensnare their souls. 


HERE END THE QUESTIONS. 


' Note in marg. ‘ See the false books of Sebastia’ (Sivas). 

2 This note in marg. of MS.: ‘See in the book of the Place of Expiation’ 
(or Purgatory). Presumably it was the work of Theophilus referred to above. 

> See note 1, on p. 84. 


CONSECRATION OF THE FLESH AND BLOOD 123 


Concerning the Consecration of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Intercessor. 


CHAPTER [ἢ] 


Now our Lord Jesus Christ willed to distribute his holy flesh 
and blood unto disciples and believers. 

First he began with the following figure’. He opened their 
minds, saying : ‘ My flesh is the true food and my blood is the true 
drink.’ And again he said?: ‘I am the bread of life which came 
down from heaven. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.’ 

When our Lord had thus ended these figures, many of the 
disciples forthwith turned back. Then he again said to his remain- 
ing disciples: Do ye go and get ready for us the table of holiness, 
where I shall presently perform the mystery of salvation, for my ° 
own believers and beloved ones. And when it was eventide Jesus 
went and sat down, and the twelve with him. He took one loaf * 
unleavened in his hands, blessed it, gave thanks, broke it and 
said: ‘Take ye, eat. This is my Bopy which for you many is 
distributed unto the expiation and remission of sins.’ [So also 
saith he in regard to the cup*. | 


Exposition of the Holy Mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ. 


That our mediator and intercessor Jesus Christ, the Lamb of 
God, took the bread® in his hands and blessed it, this the holy 
Evangelists declare. 

That is to say he earnestly besought the almighty Father that 
he would change the bread into his true precious body. ‘This is 
why it says: ‘He blessed,’ that is, he prayed the Lord that he 
would change the bread truly into his body. And so it was 
assuredly changed by the spirit of the heavenly Father. And 
when he saw that the bread was changed into his body, then he 
thanked the almighty Father for having changed it into his body 
and blood. 

Now dost thou understand, my little child, the interpretation of 
the blessing and thanksgiving ? 

Yes, holy father, I have right well understood it. Humbly I pray 


1 The words might also be rendered ‘ in this manner.’ 

2 In margin is this note: ‘John vi. 51, and as far as verse 59 he speaks in 
a figure (ov in a manner). 

3 MS. has ‘his’ for ‘ my.’ * Zit, = ‘one bread.’ 

5 The brackets are in the MS. 

6 Here is written in marg. this note; ‘ And here he truly doth distribute.’ 


124 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


thee, venerable father, interpret to us this his use of the word 
‘mine,’ namely: ‘This is my body,’ as he also said after the 
resurrection to Peter: ‘Feed my sheep.’ When he said this, did 
our mediator and intercessor Jesus Christ know that there would 
come false popes who would change [it] according to their good 
pleasure? Who with bread? alone cajole all men and make that 
their own flesh and blood, and not Christ’s. For this cause also 
doth our Lord Jesus Christ say: ‘This is my body.” Yea more, 
this doth he imply: that whosoever shall make any water, any 
mere bread, or any moistened morsel, and distribute (the same) 
deceitfully to the simple people, it is their own flesh and blood 
and not Christ’s *. 
To whom glory for ever and ever, Amen. 


This was written® in the province of Taron in the year of the 
Lord 1782; but according to the Armenian Era 1230. 


(COLOPHON *.) 


appa SS a of the all glorious John Vahaguni. For they with 
great fervour were elected by us, But because of their being elected 
the love of truth abounded in my heart. Wherefore I could not 
hide the grace of the Holy Spirit. But I began to write out in 
order the holy Sacramentary and the Key of Truth for love of 
those who ask and receive. Moreover, I humbly entreat you with 
warm love and faith to forgive the shortcomings, the insufficiencies, 
and the faults of composition or of grammar. And also as touching 
the syllables, or writing, or verbs or nouns (//. words) or eight 
parts of the art, if in regard to them ye find any errors or short- 
comings, they are not due to ourselves, but have found their way 
into it as being (the faults) of unpractised copyists. 

Glory to the Father truly existent, and to his Son our mediator 
and intercessor. Now and ever and unto eternity of eternities. 
Amen. 


1 Geo. Mon. p. 72, οὐ χρή, φησι, προσάγεσθαι ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον. 
21 add a literal Latin rendering of this important passage: Hoc dicens 
cognouit mediator et intercessor noster Jesus Christus quia uenturi sunt falsi 
papae, et mutaturi sunt secundum uoluntatem sui? Qui mero pane decipiunt 
omnes et faciunt illum corpus et sanguinem sui sed nequaquam Christi. Prop- 
terea et dominus noster Jesus Christus dicit quia Hoc est corpus meum. 
Immo hoc uult dicere quia quicunque aquam aliquam (07 aliquid), merum 
panem aliquem (or aliquid) siue tinctum frustum aliquid faciat et distribuat 
dolo ad simplices congregationes, illorum est corpus et sanguis, sed non Christi. 
* That is to say ‘ copied’; for gvem is constantly so used, 
* One or more pages of MS. are here Jost, 


ERRATUM. 


P. 124,1. 18, for the words ‘ were elected by us. But because of their 
being elected’ sedstitute the following: ‘besought us. But because of 
their beseeching ’ 


Key of Truth 


125 


AGP E ENG IOS ἢ: 


THE original of the copy from which the following letter is printed 
by Father Basil Sarkisean! in his volume on the ‘ Manichean Paulician 
Heresy’ (Venice, 1893, in Modern Armenian), is preserved in a codex 
called the Book of Letters, which used to be in the library of the Fathers 
of Antony at Constantinople. This codex was written out in 748 of 
the Armenian Era = A.D. 1300, in Hromkla by Thomas the Vardapet, 
on charta bombycina, from an older copy which belonged to Gregory 
Vkayasér in the year 527 = A.D. 1079. The convent of Kdjav, to the 
Abbot of which the letter was written, was very ancient, and was 
situated in the province of Mokatz. 

About the year 987 accusations were made against many Armenian 
monks and priests of being secret or open members of the Thonraki 
sect. Among those accused was Gregory of Narek, the famous saint 
and author of a book of devotions which is still in the hands of every 
Armenian priest. A council was held at Ani before which he was 
acquitted, and, to fully exculpate himself, he was forced to write the 
following letter to the Abbot of Kdjav, who notoriously leaned to 
the side of the heretics. 


LETTER 


Of the gracious Doctor Gregory of Narek, which he wrote to the 
celebrated convent of Kdjav, concerning fhe tenets of the cursed 
Thonraki, Ianés and Iamrés, who came in the guise of sheep, but 
within is a ravening wolf; who moreover by his fruits was made 
known to all. Him the holy doctor having heard of, wrote in order 
to liberate others from the evil tenets :— 


Lord Father 2, I write this because an untrustworthy rumour of evil 
tendency,—although those who heard it considered it trustworthy, nor 
was there any ill-will to prejudice them—admits of no other means of 
contradiction. 

For I heard that the unmentionable and obscene lechery of the 
heresy of the cursed Thonraki sect is mentioned among your pious 
ones, And I was lost in astonishment at a statement so improper on 


1 Many of Father Sarkisean’s valuable notes I translate, adding his 
initials B.S. 

2 Nothing more is known of this Abbot, nor do we know at all if any steps 
were taken in consequence of this letter to purge his convent of heresy (B. S.). 


126 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


the part of the enemies of God, who declare that you furthermore 
reported to Mushel', a learned man by repute, that you had been 
satisfied by a bearer of letters whom you had sent that they (i.e. the 
Thonraki) are not alien to the apostolical tradition’; and that you 
are keenly desirous to share in their lot and associate yourself closely 
with those who have been cut off by the sword of the avenging heathen 
Amir? Apl-Vard, who is in fact a rod of wrath in the hand of the 
Lord Jesus. 

We learn from the same source that you ask, What writing directs 
any one to be anathematized? asserting the marvellously composed 
letter of contradiction of our blessed Lord Ananias*, to be nonsensical 
or absurd, or spoken against God. Now if all this has been inspired 
by you,—I omit to say agreed to by you and (I spare so to write) 
relished by you—then you have summed up in yourself the afore- 
written [opinion] that ‘their chosen food became loathing.’ 

There is much that is divine and everything that is apostolical that 
is yet denied by them and abolished. Of divine ordinances, there is 
the laying on of hands®, as the apostles received it from Christ. 
There is the communion in his body®, as the Apostle defined it, 
saying: In eating the bread of communion, we receive and eat God 
himself, who was united with flesh. This communion-bread, before 
which we tremble, Smbat*? taught to be ordinary bread. And as for 
the birth through spiritual throes, I mean by water and Spirit, of 
which it was declared that it makes us sons of God, concerning this, 
he taught others that it consisted of mere bath water. 

And as to the exalted day of the Lord’, on which [the word of God] 
created the first light and perfected thereon the light of his rising, and 
prefigured by an economy the quickening light of his Advent,—this 
day, adorable for all it doth image, he has explained to them is to be 
counted just like any other days. 


1 B.S. conjectures that Mushel was 1.4. Mushel Bagratuni Abasean, men- 
tioned by the historian Asolik as a governor of Kars in 984. But, as he was 
a Vardapet, I doubt this identification. In any case it was an honoured name 
in Armenia from the earliest times. It is written with a strong 7 answering to 
Greek A. Or translate: ‘that you (and) specially Mushel . . . reported that.’ 

2 This testimony that the Abbot and Mushel had satisfied themselves after 
examination that the claim of the Thonraki sect to be an apostolical church 
and to possess the apostolical tradition was a valid one, is both important and 
interesting. It is the claim which is made on almost every page of the Key. 

3 This Amir cannot be identified with certainty. The reference proves that 
the Paulicians took the field against the Mahometan invaders, and were not 
spared by them. 

* This letter, written under compulsion of the Armenian Catholicos by 
Ananias of Narek, Gregory of Narek’s uncle, is preserved but does not merit 
translation, being mere invective. Ananias was, like his nephew, accused of 
being a Thonraki or Paulician. 

5 But we saw above that prominent Armenian churchmen of the tenth 
century admitted that their heretical rivals had the true apostolical tradition. 

6 The account preserved in the Key of the Paulician Eucharist is so frag- 
mentary that it is not easy to say against what aspects of it Gregory of Narek 
directs his remarks. The grain of truth in them must be that the Paulicians 
rejected the orthodox sacraments in favour of their own. 

7 Smbat (the same name as Sinbad) is stated below to have been the founder 
of the Thonraki Church. 

* The Key gives us no information as to how the Paulicians regarded the 
Lord’s day. 


APPENDIX I 127 


Then among the observances which we know to have been repudi- 
ated by them as neither apostolic nor divine, [we know to be} the 
mysterious prayers of genuflexion’, though the Creator of all, Jesus 
Christ, bowing bent the knee. We know that the Font is denied by them, 
in which Christ himself was baptized ; that the communion of immor- 
tality, which the Lord himself gave to taste unto all, is denied. We 
know their filthy habit of lecherous promiscuity’, where the Lord 
reproved and suppressed even a glance. We know that they deny 
the adored sign® (i.e. the Cross), which God, made man, raised and 
carried on his shoulder as his own glory and authority. We know of 
their anthropolatrous apostasy, more abominable and cursed than idola- 
try ; of their self-conferred* contemptible priesthood, which is a likening 
of themselves to Satan®; of their depreciation of the sacrament (222. 
crown) of marriage ®, which our Lord, by his own miracles, and through 
his own God-bearing mother, prized and honoured. This sacrament 
(Zt. crown) they contemn, and reckon the mere fact of union in love 
with one another to be perfect love, and from God and pleasing to 
Christ ; saying that God is love and desires the love union alone, and 
not the sacrament of marriage (212. crown). I know, too, of their 
railing and cavilling at the first-fruits’, which Abel and Noe and 
Abraham and David and Solomon and Elias appointed to conciliate 
the Divine wrath. We know how they dare to call the head of 
their abominable sect a Christ*; of whom Christ testified before- 
hand, saying, There shall arise false prophets. And this is the 
meaning of the prophet’s saying: The fool said in his heart, there is 
no God. 

Such, then, are the apostolic ® men of your Mushel who examines 
and finds them to be people of unswerving faith. These, then, are 
they whom my father’s brother, a Vardapet of great acumen, closely 
investigated, as being himself an apologist of God. And he, like a 
learned champion, radically demolished the fabulous blasphemies of 
the lawless Thonraki sect; and had he not done so we should hardly 


1 We gather that the Paulicians prayed standing erect in the primitive 
Christian manner. The continuity of observance in their Church is strikingly 
illustrated by the fact that its modern adherents still forbid genuflexions, 
as we learn from the confession adduced in pp. xxv, xxvi of the Prolegomena. 

2 Here the malice of the writer must be discounted. It was the regular and 
stereotyped charge against all heretics, even the purest in their lives. It, of 
course, refers to their denial that marriage was a sacrament. 

3 See the Key, p. 115. 

* The Armenian word is a compound and -- αὐτόχειρ, ‘ with one’s own hand.’ 
See note 8, below. 

See the Key, p. 119. 
Perhaps the Key, p. 115, should be compared, where offerings of incense, 
candles, and victims are prohibited. 

8 The elect one, according to the Key, was the image of Jesus Christ on 
earth, his office was to reproduce on earth the life and calling of Christ him- 
self. See the Key, pp. 95 and 106. The same charge of pretending that he 
was Christ or the Holy Spirit was advanced against Sergius the Paulician, 
who is identified by Dr. Mkerttschian and the historian Tchamitch with Smbat. 
See also the Prolegomena, pp. 1xi foll. 

® The claim of those who used the Key and of him who wrote it was that the 
Paulician was the only true apostolic church. See above, note 2, p. 126, and 
Prolegomena, pp. xxxiii and xli. 


5 
6 
7 


128 THE KEY OF 1 TRUTH 


have known! from report even the name of the foul creatures, so 
insignificant is their fame. What gifts then of election” have they 
seen in the abominable Kumbricus *, what trace of good in Simon %, 
or what hope to look forward to in the antichrist, of all of whom they 
are the disciples? For, forgetful of the ineffable favours and kindness 
bestowed on them through the Passion, they call these their refuge °, 
though they have lied about the same. For they are packs of dogs 
and bands of thieves, troops of wolves and arrays of devils; tribes 
of brigands and masses of weevils, hordes of savages and legions of 
crucifiers, congregations of evil ones and men of blood, swarms of 
poisonous snakes and herds of wild beasts, enemies of mankind, 
societies of wizards and heretics, the scorn not only of churchmen, 
but of heathen as well. 

For I must relate what a certain valiant man said, who destroyed 
and put to an infamous death their cursed ancestors. This is what he 
said to the second Iamrés®: ‘If Christ rose on the third day, then 
since you call yourself Christ’, I will slay you and bury you; and if 
you shall come to life again after thirty days, then I will know that 
you are Christ, even though you take so many days over your resurrec- 
tion. Now he was in close contact with them as a neighbour, and 
he had learned the story of the bitter phrensy of these offenders from 
many who had told it him, and he certainly believed* in the true 
resurrection of Christ, and was making mock of them as proper objects 
of ridicule, when he left behind him the memory of this laudable saying. 
For it was God and no earthly being who raised up this idea in him, 
and it was providence which enjoined him to reprove or destroy the 
wicked according to their wickedness; just as providence gave for 
food the terrible serpent of Ind, and chastised the Jews through the 
Chaldeans, and in judgement overwhelmed those who crucified Jesus 
by the hand of Titus and Vespasian and Adrian, and reprimanded the 
Egyptian nation with a twofold destruction by the hand of Cyrus. 
And he is said to have hung up in the dread oracular temple of Beliar 
himself the lance with which he smote them. Now the very devils 
knew God the only-born and confessed him to be judge of all; but the 
foul Smbat, a second Simon, allowed himself to be worshipped by his 
disciples, men rooted in bitterness and sowers of tares ; just like that 
wizard of Samaria, and Montanus and Pythagoras the illiterate and 
heathen philosopher. 

I have set down a few points out of many, and I await your answer. 


1 Why was Gregory so anxious to disclaim all knowledge of the sect? 
Because he was accused of belonging to it. Was the accusation true? Probably 
he had, at least in secret, once belonged to it, for his enemies nicknamed him 
‘ Apostate.’ 

2 Gregory glances at the ‘ Election’ and ‘ Elect ones’ of the Paulicians. 

3 i.e. Mani called Κύβρικον. Gregory perhaps draws upon Photius or the 
Archelaus acts. 

* In the Key Simon Magus is mentioned on pp. 91, 92. 

® See the prayer in the Ordination Service in the Key, p. 108. 

6 A sobriquet for Smbat. 7 See above, note 8, p. 127. 

® Yet Gregory adduces this story by way of illustrating how the Thonraki 
were the scorn of heathen as well as of churchmen. He was not ashamed to 
gloat over Mahometan mockery and murder of his own countrymen, and this 
although—as is clear from the context—the Paulicians had given their lives in 
order to repel the Mahometan invaders of Armenia. See the Prolegomena, 
pp. Lxiii foll. 


APPENDIX I. 129 


For it is a leading principle of our Lord’s canon, which says: And 
by thy words shalt thou be justified, and out of thy works shalt thou 
be judged. But if you admire their writings!, we know that Satan too 
recited a psalm on the day of the temptation of the Saviour of all. 
But unless you place on record a double curse and manifold anathema 
against their founder Smbat and their dead and wizard-like cults and 
their profession of faith”; and unless you in writing declare that what they 
represent as good is mere ordure over and over, and find the same to be 
excess of apostasy, and intimate the same in your letter to me, which 
is the way in which it beseems you to clear your character and to get 
rid of the scandal and prejudice: anyhow, know for certain that 1 have 
written entirely out of consideration for your good and peace and love. 
For if your citadel of refuge * be betrayed by you, its own guardian, 
then of yourself will you become a traitor to your high office. And 
since this Mushel writes that he is a Vardapet*, you must arm a 
champion against the enemy and repair the breach that has been 
effected, and defend exposed places, and be light and salt and mentor 
to him that is in the dark, according to the divine canon. But if your 
light be to his thinking darkness, he is beyond doubt a viperous 
sorcerer and senseless giver of poison. For his science is not holpen 
by the finger of God, his voice is ill-starred and inspired by evil, and 
his report is deceitful—a destroyer of peace. 

And now with what conscience can he repeat the words: ‘Out of 
what writings can I anathematize any one?’ Paul anathematized even 
an angel that should think things alien to his gospel, and he did not 
scruple to repeat the anathema twice. And David cursed his trans- 
gressions and subscribed to the reprimand. And the Lord saith of 
those who have deserted from the ranks and are altogether on his 
left hand: Depart from me ye cursed ones. And we received from 
the Council of Nice®, and learned an anathema on the vainglory of 
heretics, which is formally directed to be used twice over in the hymn 
of the confession of faith which follows after the reading of the gospel. 
An answer to the letters of Petros from Sahak prescribed forms of 
anathema against those excommunicated at Chalcedon. And there 
are the heads of Cyril of Alexandria’s anathemas against Nestorius, 
and the Henoticon letter of the Emperor Zeno, which curses by name 
the utterly heretical sects. 

Now if we are by ordinance obliged to curse those whose short- 
comings are but in part, how much more ® must we curse the mani- 
foldly heretical ranks of this congregation, which is cut off from Christ 
and united by bonds to Satan. And now, Lord Abbot, take no offence 
at the terms of my letter, nor take unfeigned love as if it were hatred. 
For the love of Christ compels me to this, and we only desire you to 


1 Or more probably gpuputiar[Ffrt should be rendered ‘ quoting of the 
Scriptures.’ 

2 See the Key, pp. 93, 94 and 97. 

3 i.e. the convent to the Abbot of which this letter is addressed. 

* Therefore Mushel was probably a doctor of the Armenian Gregorian 
Church. 

5 This anathema is still repeated by Armenians at the end of the Nicene 
Symbol. 

® This passage proves at least that the Thonraki had nothing to do with 
the Nestorians and other heretical sects enumerated in the Henoticon. See the 
Prolegomena. 


O 


130 THE KEY OF “GRU 


be spotless. And do you order to be copied the volumes?’ full of 
learning which the father Ananias, with great care, wrote against 
these schismatics. 


1 This work of Ananias is unfortunately lost. If it could be discovered, it 
might give valuable information. Nerses Schnorhali quotes it in his Epistola I 
(see Sanctt Nersetis Clajensts Opera, vol. 1. pp. 58-64, Venice, 1832), but his 
citations, though valuable, hardly make up for the loss. Gregory Magistros, 
early in the eleventh century, also quotes this lost work of Ananias in his letter 
to the Patriarch of Edessa, which, along with the letter of Nerses Schnorhali, 
will be given in English below. 


TSE 


ἌΡΡΕΝΙ ET: 


ARISTACES of Lastivert, whose two chapters on the Thonraki sect 
are here translated, was an eyewitness of most of the events described 
in his history, which opens with the year 989 and ends with 1071; 
particularly of the siege and sack of the royal city of Ani by Alp-Arslan 
the Second, king of Persia, in the year 1064. It is evident, however, 
that he could not have taken part in the proceedings with respect to 
the Thonraki here set forth ; for they took place within the first decade 
of the eleventh century. We must, therefore, use due caution in regard 
to the narrative. 

I translate from the Venice edition of 1844, which contains a good 
text, though based on late MSS. I have omitted some superfluous 
matter, especially citations of scripture, marking the omissions with 
dots. Aristace’s history was rendered into French, and published in 
1864 at Paris by M. Ev. Prud’homme. 


ENSHORY OF -ARISTACES VARDAPED (O's 
WASTER. 


CHAPTER XXII. 


Concerning the evil heresy of the Thonraki which appeared in the 
province of Harg*, and convulsed the people. 


Jacobus was a bishop who had the charge of the church of the 
family of Harq; and at the beginning of his term of authority he 
exampled all the virtues. He dressed in sack-cloth, fasted, went 


1 A description of this region is given in Indshidshian, Descriptio Armeniae 
(Mod. Armenian), Venice, 1806. Harq is a region lying south-east of Erzeroum 
(Karin), on the eastern slopes and valleys of the volcanic mountain Pinkedl. 
This tract is separated from Karin by two watersheds, between which runs the 
upper stream of the river called Mourtz, or Pinke6l Sou. The more northern 
of these ranges is called Mardali-Théqman, just south of Karin, Khnus or 
Khnz is a naturally fortified village town in the centre of this region, at the 
meeting point of several considerable streams, which have risen on the north- 
east slopes of Pinke6l, and flow first eastwards and then south to join the south- 
east branch of the Euphrates. 


Ο 2 


James 
ishop of 
Harq ; his 

virtues 


and influence 
over his 
clergy. 


Paulicianism 
recruited 
from the 
Armenian 
Church of 
St. Gregory. 


132 THE WEY OF ΤΕ 


bare-footed ; and he chose for his priests who always accompanied 
him, men coarsely clad and simple, who avoided a life of pleasure, 
and constantly occupied themselves in the singing of psalms. 

By such a mien he stirred others far and near to admiration, and 
every one was anxious to see him; while those who had been very 
haughty and overweening because of their authority, submitted them- 
selves so entirely to his influence, that, had he bid them draw their 
last breath, there was not one of them who would have opposed him, 
or, have ventured to open his mouth and murmur. 

Yet all this was hypocrisy and not sincere; for it is the fruit which 
makes known the tree, as we heard from our Lord. Moreover, the 
Apostle writes to the same effect, and says: ‘Satan himself doth take 
the form of an angel of light” How much more do his worshippers 
transform themselves into apostles of Christ. For just as men mix 
deadly drugs in honest food that others may take it, and, swallowing 
as if it were food, may be caught by the deadly drug; and just as 
fishermen conceal their hooks with bait, that the fish may be deceived 
by the food and be taken on the hook; so also do the workers of 
wickedness. For they dare not openly show their pit of destruction 
to any one; because then no one would be induced by them — however 
much out of his senses he might be—to fall of his own will into an 
abyss, out of which he could not get up again. ‘This is why they 
disguise themselves under cover of our godly religion in order to 
deceive the simple-minded, and by their soft words take captive the 
minds of the innocent. For their words eat into such, like a cancerous 
growth; and just as this is difficult to heal, so those who are taken 
by them can with difficulty keep themselves safe. 

And because of them doth our Lord warn us in his saving gospel: 
‘Beware of false prophets who come to you in Jambs’ clothing, but 
within are ravening wolves.’ Also the Apostle teaches the Philippians 
in the same way, being instructed by the Lord’s commands: ‘ Beware 
ye of dogs, beware of evil workers.’ For it is easy to be on one’s 
guard against outside enemies, but it is hard to shelter oneself from 
the assaults of one’s own kinsmen, as happened to Abel and Joseph. 
Now these enemies of ours, had they been of foreign-speaking races, 
no matter what, could have easily been guarded against; but as the 
blessed John writes: ‘They went out from among us, but they were 
not all of us,’ and therefore it is difficult to know them. They are of 
our own tongue and nation, and have issued from one and the same 
spring, like sweet water and bitter. Although St. Jacob declared 
it impossible, yet among us this has happened. From the sweet 
spring which our glorious leader struck, going down into the depths 
of the earth for fifteen years of sweat and toil—struck and made to 
flow in a copious stream from the depths of the hole—[this has come 
forth] ; yea, from the limpid and pure well which the seer Ezekiel saw, 
and into which no poisonous rivulets of heresy could penetrate. For 
the bulwark of truth was firmly set on the rock of faith until these last 


APPENDIX II 133 


times', though our IJluminator himself with prophetic spirit saw what 
should come, that the sheep should become wolves and shed our 
blood. And this happened when the lawless men multiplied upon the 
earth, and the good master of the house slept who had sown the seed. 
Then the enemy found his field, and sowed the tares amid the wheat 
according to the parable of the Gospel. The dregs of bitterness were 
mingled with the living water which, like a fountain, issued from the 
master’s house. But of old it was revealed to the doctors of the 
church’, who plucked out the tares by the root from the field of our 
faith; and pressed out and strained off the dregs of bitterness, and 
made wholesome the waters with the salt of truth, according to the 
old and just policy of St. Elisha. But enough of this. It is time 
to return to the main subject of my discourse, in order to confirm 
what we have said. 


The first-born satellite, then, of the father of all evils, his earliest C. 1002. 


conspirator, so soon as his deceptive reputation for goodness was 
bruited abroad by senseless persons, began at once to make our faith 
his target at which to sling his arrows, even as the shafts of the 
lightning are driven into an ancient oak. For the fellow was very 
fluent of speech, and by his eloquence bewitched the ears of many. 
Then he planned in this way to subvert the holy church from its 
foundations. And he forgot the Lord’s command and _ infallible 
promise to Peter: ‘Thou art the Rock, and on this rock I will build 
my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He 
trusted not in this, but listened to the private advice, as it were, of 
any man; and so entered into controversy, and thought to shear off 
the glory of the church; just as of old the harlot did with the locks 
of Samson. Just as she betrayed his unconquerable person to the 
gentile, so he, to renders of the truth, that holy church, which our 
Lord Jesus Christ had bought with his precious blood, and crowned 
and glorified with the all-victorious cross; establishing therein 
a sacramental table after the fashion of the tree of life in Eden. 
Whose fruit making us immortal we know to be the true body of the 
Saviour, according to his faithful precept: ‘Whoever shall eat my 
flesh shall not see death for ever.’ Consider, then, his low cunning, 
how like a snake he contrived by his corruptions to pour the destruc- 
tive poison into those who were sound in the faith. 

In the first place he began by establishing election among priests 
according to worth, and told the unworthy to keep silence. And as 
this seemed to please the many, he proceeded to add other innovations. 
For he ordered the worthy ones only to present offerings (07 masses) 
three times in the year. And, although in the Nicene canons it is 
written that, ‘Even though a man be very sinful, yet you must receive 
his confession, and communicate to him the Lord’s body and blood, 


1 But from the other sources we know that, as early as 1000, Paulicianism 
was on the decline in Taron as elsewhere, and was no new thing. 
2 See pp. lvii foll. of the Prolegomena. 


Appoints 
election of 
priests. 


Rejects 
auricular 
confession 
and victims. 


Two coun- 
cils held 

against the 
Paulicians. 


James relies 
on people 
and on 
magistrates. 


134 THE ΟΝ ΟἿΣ TROUGH 


and hold him worthy of all masses (/¢. offerings) and all Christian 
orders’; yet he utterly declined to accept auricular confessions. But 
he taught as follows, that if a man has not in his own soul himself 
repented of his sins, then commemorations help him not, neither 
offerings. And along with his instruments he would scoff and jeer, 
for they would bring an animal and set it before them, and say as 
follows: ‘Alas, thou unhappy animal. Leave alone the fact that 
yonder man in his time committed sins and died, still what sins hast 
thou committed, that thou shouldst die with him ’’ 

And beside this, the congregations were divided into two parties, 
because some accepted this teaching, but others not. And all were 
disturbed and perplexed, and were asking what was to be the outcome 
of the matter. Moreover, those who at the time were in the desert 
and in grottos, for ever doing the pleasure of God in their solitary 
and ascetic lives, were deeply afflicted, and with tears besought the 
benevolent Lord to visit them. And there was also held twice over 
a council of many fathers and pontiffs and priests, and of numbers of 
other people of all sorts, not to be counted. Yet since the governors 
of the province were all as it were spell-bound by his hypocritical 
demeanour, they declared that they would all die as it were by war, 
before they would give him into the hands of the council. So he, like 
Nestorius, sat in his house and reaped great encouragement, and by 
means of a message made his defence to the council, relying on the 
help of the governors rather than of God. For he did not bear 
in mind the psalm of David: ‘It is better to trust in God, than to 


1 The following passage from Nerses Shnorhali, born c. 1100, and Armenian 
Catholicos 1165, is a defence of the custom of sacrificing animals in church in 
expiation of the sins of the dead. It is from his first epistle, chap. 2, and I cite 
the Latin translation, published at Venice 1833, vol.i.p. 51: ‘ Porro immolatio, 
si quis illam agere uelit in memoriam dormientium in Christo, ita fiat. Ad 
ecclesiae iannam congregentur una cum oblationis domino sacerdotes; siue 
multi fuerint sive pauci, siue unus tantum, ponantque salem coram sancta cruce, 
et scriptos Psalmos ac officia concinnent, lectionesque et orationes magno timore 
perlegant, ac deuoto corde dormientis nomen commemorent, atque a domino 
ueniam peccatorum illius deposcant, ac salem benedictum porrigant, immolent- 
que bestiam et statutas eorum partes dent sacerdotibus. Ex residuo autem 
prius esurientes alant et indigentes, ac postea, si quid supererit, charos et 
amicos. Atque, primo die excepto, ne quid servent ex eo in cibum domus suae 
pro aliis futuris diebus, propterea quod deo oblatum est.’ This sacrifice was 
called a mata/ and was ‘ad animarum requiem.’ The canon De Sacerdotibus of 
St. Isaac, Armenian patriarch in the fourth century, relates the origin of these 
sacrifices. At the time of the conversion of Armenia, the pagan priests who 
had lived ‘ ex profanis idololatriae uictimis’ asked how they and their families 
were now to live. Whereon St. Gregory the Illuminator ‘ praecepit populo, ut 
loco oblationum quas immundis idolis antea offerebant, unico Deo immolatas 
animalium oblationes benedicto sale commixtas, in Paschate resurrectionis 
Domini, et in quacunque dominica festiuitate, nec non illustrium sanctorum, et 
in commemoratione defunctorum in Christo... . Iussitque dare conversis 
ex idololatria sacerdotibus illaruam immolationum partem; non solum, sicuti 
modo largiuntur, ex pelle et coxendice, sed et amplius adhuc.’ Thus a premium 


was held out to priestly families which should be converted to the new 
religion. 


— ὦ... 


APPENDIX II 135 


trust in governors’; and the miscreant thought he would with the help 
of men triumph over the truth. But God, who permits not the rod of 
sinners to prevail in the lot of the just, lest the just should reach out 
their hands unto wickedness, who doeth the will of them that fear 
him and heareth their prayers, who stilleth the raging of the storm, 
and bringeth rain in the drought—and that at the prayer of a single 
just man, he visited us and brought salvation to his people. For he 
knows in his profound wisdom how to lay from afar the foundation 
of mighty events. So in this case, in his providence he did what was 
really best for us, and it happened thus. 

There was a religious man in the province of Karin’ by name Esaiah of 
Esaiah, of a pious family, who, because of Jacob’s good report, had Karn 
gone and joined him, when the disquiet and inquiries I have described 
were stirred up about him, His suspicions were aroused, and he 
scanned him narrowly ; for he was a very sage man and had gained 
his entire intimacy, being regarded as one of his most trusty followers. 

He accordingly looked into and informed himself about the filthy cult 

of Jacob, and at once when he had done so went and related the same 

to the holy patriarch Sargis®, who, on hearing thereof and ascertain- delates 
ing the fact, summoned to himself with gentle words the miscreant and ρος τς the 
rewarded him according to his deserts. For he deprived him of his 52s8is, 
priest’s orders, and branded his forehtad with the likeness of a fox, who brands 
and at the same time issued a proclamation to this effect : Any one See 
of the faith of the holy Illuminator who shall enter and join the fold Dames: 

of the law-breaking Thonraki, who are wild beasts arrayed against 
mankind, shall suffer this just sentence and penalty. And he bade 

the miscreant be kept in prison, for he hoped that he might perhaps 

repent and promise to keep away from the filthy sect. For he was 

full of pity for the lost soul. 

But since, according to the words of Jeremiah, the fire cannot forget 
to burn, nor the Indian lose his black colour, nor the leopard his spots, 
so could this wicked man not lose his wickedness. For one night he James 
broke out of prison and took to flight, and passed into the land of the Guna ᾿ 
Greeks, till he came to the royal city of Constantinople, where he 
maligned our faith, and sought to be baptized according to their rites. 

But they in their wisdom, being informed of the facts, would not 

receive him; but answered: One whom the Armenians disdain and 

reject in a matter of faith, we too refuse to accept. So when he did but returns 
not succeed in this, he went away and came into the province of ae 
Apahuni into the dwelling-place of Satan, the congregation of apostates 

from God and den of wild beasts which is called Thondrakis. How- 

ever, they aver that even they would not receive him because of his 
exceeding filthiness; wherefore he departed into the mountain of 

Klath*. There he was found by his own people in the hamlets and in 

remote spots, and with them he remained quiet. And after spending 


1 i.e. Erzeroum. 2 This Sargis became Patriarch, c. 1002. 
8 Akhlath, or Khelath, is on Lake Van. 


Kountzik, 
a monk, 


is converted 
by an 
Albanian 
monk. 


He converts 
a certain 
lady, 


who converts 
Prince Vrver. 


136 THE KEY OF “TRUTH 


his days there, he went and died miserably in the city called Muharkin. 
As he had not conformed to the canonical writings nor had been in 
union with Christians, he was cast out and abandoned. Wherefore 
he died like an ass and was buried like an ass, leaving an ill memory 
behind him; in order that all who hear this story may imprecate 
curses upon him. Mitt 


I. 


CHAPTER 


How in the borders of Mananali there burst out a conflagration 
of folly. 

Kountzik was an incestuous monk who lived hard by the fortified 
city called Shiri, where to the present day they call a hamlet by his 
name. He was far advanced in years and had in himself the leaven 
of filthiness. For he had imbibed it from the teaching of a libidinous 
monk, who reported about himself that he was of the Albanians. 
However, he was a scion of Satan and a storehouse of Satanic counsels, 
so that the smoke of the oven of hell? was continually bursting into 
flame from his lips; whereby many took the poison and were lost. 

Well, this Kountzik, being a busy worker of Satan, ensnared a certain 
woman, named Hranoysh?, who was of a leading and distinguished 
family, and was mistress of a leading and distinguished family, and 
was mistress of a hamlet conterminous with his. When she was filled 
with the deadly breath of his venom, she was not satisfied with her 
own destruction, but provided many to help on their deceits. And she 
first of all corrupted two women who were related to her family, and 
whose names were respectively Akni and Kamaray,—and indeed she 
was a genuine doer of Satan’s will®. But they were both true sisters, 
and having caught the wild instinct of fornication, as is usual in their 
fold, they proceeded with the cleverness of witches to make themselves 
teachers of Satan. ... And they smote and cruelly wounded many 
innocent hearts. For having in their patrimony two villages, they 
made them ready as dens and lairs in which the dragon of the crafty 
serpent might nestle and pour out the flood of his spleen. And they 
made themselves cup-bearers and gave those who lived round them to 
drink of the draught of destruction. Wherefore Moses wrote: ‘ Their 
wine is the rage of dragons, the rage of vipers impossible to heal.’ 

A certain prince, Vrvér by name, made himself the brother and 
instrument of these witches. Aforetime he had been sound in the 
faith and foremost in all zeal for piety ; so much so that he had built 
a convent on his own estate and gathered in it ascetic brethren. 
And he supplied from his wide marches (07. ‘on liberal terms’) all the 


' From this metaphor, with which compare Greg. Mag., p. 146, we are to 
understand the doctrines of the Thonraki, or Thondraki as Aristaces spells it. 

? Hranoysh was a common female name in the royal house of the Bagratuni. 

* The Armenian word Kamarar =‘ doer of the will,’ and is used as a pun on 
the name Kamaray. 


APPENDIX II 137 


wants of their lives, and their abbot was known by the name of Andrew, 
and was very famous for his zeal in all works of religion. To them 
repaired the prince year by year for the fast of the forty days, and 
remained engaged with them in pious exercises until the days of the 
great Pasek'. And he performed many other good works in the way 
of ministering to them, and took the lead of all in feeding the poor and 
in obedience to the priests. Him the evil one inveigled through these 
women; for they with the abandonment of passion fornicated pro- 
miscuously with him, without taking any account of their nearness of 
BIO OGhtOcIM 2. Sic. 5.1 1--- 

The poor wretch Vrvér was thus ensnared by them and made naked 
his shame, and fell from the faith and became an enemy of God and 
of his saints. He forsook the Lord, who through the holy font begat 
him ; forgot God, who with his own flesh and blood fed him. He went 
forth from his house fallen from honour, and forgot his divine vows, 
and severed himself from participation in the monkish orders; and 
where aforetime was a meeting-place of religious men, which he had 
built at great expense and with trouble, where the lines of psalmodists 
and choirs of ministrants had joined the hosts above in hymning God 
in sweet-voiced songs, there to-day the voices were silenced and their 
place was tenantless and waste. 

And after this what? The unhappy wretch allied himself with the 
devilish women, and going round the hamlets which were their native 
places, and which we mentioned a little above, and of which the names 
were respectively Kashé and Alinsoy’, they converted all the inhabi- 
tants to themselves. And then they turned into a wilderness,—so 
mad were they in their devilish phrensy,—the churches, which in their 
snakes’ haunts had been aforetime built. And in the villages, when- 
ever an opportunity presented itself, they shamelessly tore down the 
symbol of our salvation and the armour of our Lord’s victory. .... : 
But since I have mentioned the cross, I will bring into my narrative 
another tale of miracle, which will make all my readers tremble. 

In the ravines of the mountain Pakhr, which is now-a-days called 
the hill of Emery (Gaylakhazut) there was a village of our first fathers 
called Many-Springs ; where the divine cross had been set up with 
much splendour and pomp; so that the vulgar name of the spot was 
changed and it is called Cross to this day. On the day of the great 
Pentecost, on the night which is called the new Lord’s day, the 
workers of the will of Satan came with a hammer and, smiting 
the crown of the sign which received God upon itself, ground it to 
powder and cast it on the ground. Then they themselves secretly 
crept back into their snakes’ holes .-.. 

Now after his wont at cockcrow the elder rose and came before the 
cross, to perform the service of the great Lord’s Day. And when he 


1 i.e. Easter. 
2 T cannot fix these localities, which must, however, have been somewhere 
south of Erzeroum in the province of Taron. 


Vrvér 
preaches the 
Paulician 
tenets. 


His converts 
destroy the 
crosses in 


Pakhr. 


The patri- 
arch Samuel 


destroys 
Paulician 
villages 


and impri- 
sons six of 
their 
doctors. 


Vrvér ap- 
peals to the 
judge sent 
by the 


emperor 


to punish 
Samuel. 


138 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


saw so marvellous a sight he began to rend his garments ; and the 
inhabitants of the place, roused by his loud cries, came bounding up 
and crowded together to see it. And when their chiefs beheld the 
wonder, they raised shrill lamentation and beat their breasts and 
were about to return; and at the time there was general weeping 
and wailing of men and women, old and young, all at once. And 
while they were thus distraught, on a sudden an idea flashed upon 
them inspired by the ineffable wisdom of God. During the night on 
which the evil deed was done, snow had suddenly fallen and whitened 
the face of the earth; so that they got on the tracks of the law- 
breakers and, following them up, soon reached their lair. And tidings 
were sent instantly to the blessed patriarch Samuel, who on hearing of 
the matter hastened to the spot with a large concourse of followers. 
And he mustered to himself the bishops and elders and fathers of the 
region, and going with them he burned and destroyed the lairs of 
the lawless ones, cursing their goods and possessions, as Jesus afore- 
time did Jericho, that no one might dare to take aught. But six of 
them, who were said to be doctors (//. Vardapets)* of their evil and 
filthy religion, he placed under arrest, and a council having met at the 
city-village called Djermay?, he directed that they should be branded 
on the forehead with the image of a fox; so that this might be a sign 
of them for ever, clear and palpable to all. Lest any one without 
knowing it should communicate with them; and in order that, like 
wild beasts, they might be persecuted by all mankind. Thereafter 
he blessed the congregation which had assisted him in his labours 
and dismissed them in peace. 

But when in the course of the summer a judge was sent from the 
Emperor to hold an assize in the region called Elia*, he on reaching 
the neighbourhood of the churches was met by the infamous Vrver. 
The latter preferred an indictment against the venerable patriarch 
Samuel and the other bishops who were with him, saying: ‘ They 
have laid waste my house and have sacked and burned my village.’ 
And he laid a claim against him for many treasures and chattels. 
And when the judge heard this be was mad with anger, and sent his 
soldiers to bring in all haste before him the blessed bishop. 

However, when the soldiers came, the head of the bishops wrote 
dispatches to the incumbents of the church, to the elders and the 
eremites to muster unto him without any delay. And when the tidings 
reached them, as if divine providence had given them all warning, 
a multitude of persons without delay met in one place; not only of 


1 The use of the word Vardapet points to the recognition by Aristaces of 
a regular order of doctors or teachers among the Paulicians, such as we read 
of in the Key, pp. 95, 103. 

2 Consul Brant notes a village Chevermer, perhaps identical, due west by 
a few miles of Miish, in the western part of the plain of Mish, a few miles 
south of the Murad Chai (Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, July, 
1838). Here it was that the Aey of 7ruth was copied in 1782. 

* For the position of Elia see the Prolegomena, p. Ixix. 


APPENDIX II 139 


priests, but still more of laymen, in numbers so great that I cannot Samuel 
write them down, and the multitude of them flocked as far as the eer ue 
shore of the river Euphrates, where Mananali! approaches thereunto, Mananali, 
And there was at that season a downfall of rain, so torrential that 
the Euphrates had risen and flowed full of surging billows. But the 
soldiers had brought a ship, and proceeded to hurry across the aged 
bishop Samuel and his brother’s son Theodore to the borough called 
Kothér, for it was there that the judge was. But the crowd caught The judge's 
hold of the bishops and would not let the soldiers take them. The ἐπ Ξν 
latter, however, said: ‘We will first ferry them over and then the 
crowd.’ And by so saying they persuaded them, and having got 
the bishops along with the ship, they crossed to the other side. And 
then they made fast the ship, and he put the bishops in prison. But 
when the multitude perceived their stratagem, how that the ship did 
not return to them as had been promised, they encouraged one another 
with loud cries of exhortation to perish in crossing the water, rather 
than stay quiet while the leaders of their faith were insulted. 
And now the hour of night was nigh, and the sun having gathered 
up his scattered rays was returning to the mother’, giving free space 
to the heavenly company of the ether. Then the ranks of priests 
dashed forward, and without indeed parting the waters with the 
mystery of the cross, they yet held in their hands that same symbol 
of the Lord’s victory, and, raising it on their shoulders, they fortified 
themselves with faith and began to stem the high-surging throng of 
waters. And these gave way and let the multitude pass, as a hard- 
mouthed horse yields when bruised by the bit. And no one was 
injured of all that multitude, no not one. And when they had passed 
over they sang all the night a hymn of thanksgiving to God, having 
for the leader of their choir the spotless Mary, who is the holy Church®, 
bearing in her hand the cymbal, that is the truth of the faith .... 
and they sang for all to hear: ‘ Bless the Lord, for he hath wrought 
marvels,’ along with the words which follow. -And with such lofty 
strains they brought the night to an end in prayer to God. 


1 Mananali, now Theqman, lies due south-east of Erzeroum, twelve hours or 
more by the public road, and six or seven by mountain path. Mananali was 
rather the name of a region than of a town. It is the high valley or group of 
valleys in which run the head streams of the Pinke6l Sou, which joins the 
Eraskh river on the north confines of the region due east of Erzeroum. Both 
streams flow out of the north side of the Pinke6dl mountain. Kurds and 
Armenians inhabit these valleys, which are full of wild sheep, and, in spite of 
the severe winter, the pastures are good. Moses of Chorene mentions a cave 
here, bk. 3, 45. 

4 Cp. Sirach xl. 1. 

3 This was a Manichean and probably Marcionite tenet, e.g. Acta Archelat, 
ch. 47, ‘Nupserit Ioseph uirgo, castissima et immaculata ecclesia” Routh 
regards ‘ecclesia’ here as an interpolation, but wrongly, for Manes intends, 
parenthetically, to insist on his own conception of the Virgin Mary. The 
Albigeois had the same teaching, Maitland, p. 273; and it constantly meets 
us in orthodox fathers. 


Vrver 
acquitted by 
the judge. 
Persecution 
of his 
followers. 


Paulician 
tenets 
described. 


140 THE KEY*OF TRUTH 


But the judge, on hearing of the providential act and of the miracles, 
knew that God watches over our nation..... And at the dawn of 
day, for it was the first of the week, he went to the bishop’s palace, 
which is called Frrisn, and gave a just verdict and upheld in their 
rights the chiefs of the people. And they ordered the unworthy and 
guilty Vrvér to prove his case. Now there is an animal called 
a cuttle-fish, which they say is able to turn all colours in order to 
escape its pursuers. So he saw that he could not face the might of 
truth, since the darkness is ended when the light beams forth, and 
falsehood is destroyed when truth is revealed. So what did he do, or 
to what device did he resort? He confessed to being a Greek (222. 
Roman), and made himself an adopted son of the bishop whose name 
and title was Episarat, having bribed him to consent. And the latter 
came before the court and humbly begged him as a favour to himself, 
and the judge consented. For the brother of the malefactor was of 
royal rank, and, because of his spirit and valour, was one of the chosen 
friends and acquaintances of the emperor ; for which reason the judge 
was very respectful. Accordingly he gave him to the bishop in trust, 
as the latter requested him to do. But all the rest of his companions 
whom they found they beat severely, and scourged and banished them 
and burned their houses. And the multitude praised the judge and 
departed in peace. But the judgement of God soon overtook him, 
although he then escaped punishment. For..... his body was 
destroyed by leprosy. However, he did not come to repentance, nor 
ever remember his early piety. But he adhered to the same devilish 
heresy, until he was removed from this life; and the torments of his 
flesh continually warned and reminded him of the hell in which he 
was to be tormented. 

But as for their filthy observances, we deemed it indecent to commit 
them to writing, for they are too loathsome; and since it is not every- 
one that is proof against what he hears, a recital of many sins might 
draw listeners into lust, or even lead them to commit such things 
themselves. For this reason I have avoided them. But what is 
manifest about them and fit to be repeated is as follows. Church 
and church ordinances they utterly reject—its baptism ; the great and 
terrible mystery of the mass (2212. offering); the cross and the ordinance 
of fasts. But let us, truly believing in the holy Trinity, keep the sure 
confession of unshaken hope, which we learned from the holy fathers. 
And from their apostate congregation let us turn away our faces and 
send out curses upon them. 


I4I 


POPE Nope ΤΙΊ. 


GREGORY MAGISTROS, whose letters, after the accounts of Gregory 
of Narek and Aristaces, form our chief Armenian source of informa- 
tion about the Paulicians of Armenia, died A.D. 1058, having probably 
been born late in the tenth century. He resided much in Constanti- 
nople and was a good Greek scholar, who translated into Armenian 
Plato’s Laws, Timaeus, Phaedo, and other dialogues. He was in 
favour with the Greek emperors, who in assailing Ani destroyed the 
last vestige of Armenian independence. Constantine Monomachus 
made him Duke of Mesopotamia, and commissioned him to carry on 
in the newly-annexed south-east regions of Armenia the persecutions 
of the Paulicians, begun more than 200 years before in the Western 
Taurus. In the letters here given he recites his exploits in his usual 
bombastic manner. Their date is between 1054 and 1058 The 
Armenian text is not published in full, and accordingly I base my 
translation mainly on Karapet Ter-Mkherttschian’s German rendering 
of the original, as given in a good but late codex of Gregory’s letters 
preserved in the Munich library. Where I could, I have controlled 
his version from extracts made by myself from that codex in 1891, and 
from excerpts printed in Chamich’s H7story of Armenia, and in Father 
Karekin’s Azstory of Armenian Literature. 


Answer of Gregory Magistros to the letter of the Thulaili, who were 
a remnant of the new Manicheans, and who had come to the 
Catholicos of the Syrians and wished to cajole him :— 


You who have been stolen away by the wolf Smbat and his lying 
followers, who laid everything waste and pulled down the hedges,— 
to the gallows with you, unhappy wights, lost in the mazes of your 
shifty and bootless speculations. Be ye the withered and mutilated 
limbs, unfruitful branches in the vineyard, trees which, hewn up by the 
roots and cast out of the well-hedged garden, have become rotten 
wood ; even as the evil spirit which led you to utter destruction, has 
chosen for your brood a dwelling-place of the name Thonrak. For 
this name signifies that it is made to be burned, and it is truly fitting 
that the rotten timbers and the lopt off branches should be burned. 
But the holy Spirit extinguished with his holy baptism the flames of 
this insufferable fire, and so the spot came to be called after the name 
of St. George. 


Thonrak 

a centre of 
the Paulician 
movement. 


Khnus and 
Tholail other 
centres, 


Paulician 
appeal to 
Armenian 
Catholicos 
Petros. 


Re-baptism 
practised 
by the 
Paulicians. 


Heresiarchs 
Smbat, Esu, 
and Lazar, 


History 
of sect 
outlined. 


142 THE KEY OF GRUP 


The name, however, of your present abode signifies, if you regard 
the etymology of it, ‘ weakened,’ or ‘ weak in the limbs’; just as Khnus 
recalls a hole stopped up in which the deepest darkness reigns. 

I have received and read the letter addressed by you in your childish 
vulgar impertinence to the Illuminator of our souls, who sits on the 
throne of the holy apostle Thaddaeus and of his spiritual son Gregory. 
What a laughable surge with a hubbub of deceit! Is it possible that 
you should think you can persuade him, who now occupies the patri- 
arch’s throne, to accept that for which more than fifteen pontiffs have 
anathematized you and your pack of dogs that have fallen victims to 
your beast of prey? Tell me foolhardy one, that by thy wilfulness 
hast torn thyself from the breast, how wilt thou induce him to approve 
of thy perverse and darkened intellect. How will the Saviour tolerate 
your having stolen those whom with his blood he bought? I know well 
he will not tolerate it, any more than he allowed Peter in Alexandria 
to come to terms with Arius. For the only-born revealed to him in 
a dream Arius with cassock torn aside, and so let him see what the 
dragon housed within him held concealed. No more can you persuade 
with your filthy and corrupted morals. Come now, thou abortion, if 
thou canst hear; though thou seemest to be not only blind, but also 
deaf and dumb. What! wilt thou persuade us to receive you into the 
Church with these principles of yours? We fear to; for (the law) 
forbids the leper to be admitted into the tent, because the leper carries 
death in himself. But if a little spot makes all the members unclean, 
how else can it be with him that is wholly dead in leprosy ? And if we 
expel from the Church those who have sinned and enjoin penitence on 
them before we re-admit them into communion—for the priest prays 
that they may be made worthy (of communion) with the words: ‘ May 
these who have become spiritually whole become members of thy 
Church ’—surely all this is ridiculous in your case, who adhere to your 
lusts and have been baptized with the venom of the deadly serpent. 

You had enumerated the heresies of old and anathematized them. 
We laugh at such an idea. We know, you wretches, that you respect 
neither anathema nor blessing. We know that you recognize neither 
him nor another. You are not of us; yet one sees no other to whom 
you could have attached yourselves. It were much better had you 
listened to those who have cursed you, so that we, freed from your 
deadly poisons and secret shafts and Sadducee leaven, and from you, 
wolves in sheep’s clothing, might sleep in peace. I find that you 
resemble not only the sectaries, but that you add Judaism and circum- 
cision, and are much worse than they. We only ask you either to be 
warm like us, or cold like the wholly perverse, but not just lukewarm, 
for that is loathsome and tempts one to spit. 

Do ye then ask for medicine for your wounds, or show yourselves 
quite without blemish? I will give you a piece of advice, you guides 
of the evil one, you madmen. Hold yourselves far aloof from these 
innocent children, who are scattered here and there among Christians, 
and let them come and receive baptism, since they execrate Smbat 
and his followers down to Esu, no less than the light-haired hound 
Lazar! and his partisans, whom may the Lord Jesus smite with the 
breath of his: ΠΟΤ τ τ" During 170 years have thirteen patri- 
archs of Great Armenia, as many of Albania, a myriad of bishops, and 
priests and deacons innumerable admonished you, and ye have not 


1 For a fuller list of the heresiarchs see p. 145. 


APPENDIX III 143 


harkened. They have spoken and confuted you, and ye have not been 

ashamed. They have anathematized and proscribed you, and you 

have not repented, until at last the Holy Ghost and the prayer of my 

ancestor and progenitor, St. Gregory, led me forth. And I came to Gregory’s 
Mesopotamia and encountered the deadly, stormy, muddy flood which, “™P#s 
flowing forth from the cursed Thonraki Smbat, rolled death along in 

its waves. After I had purified it I set forth and went up to the well- 

head, in which the viper and scorpion and dragon of wickedness had 

nestled. I demolished it, as my ancestors did Aschtischat. Then destroys 

I named the village after the chapel of St. George, which had been Se 
taken possession of by the hound Smbat. I hope too in the Τὸ τοῖοι πρεηεν ος 
God, in him that sits enthroned on the cherubin, that he may by my St. George. 
hand shed the pity of his loving-kindness upon you; that you may forget 

your wicked disease and all your bad habits, you who have been filled 

with poison by your godless and bad leaders and hatched out a brood 

of the evil one. But if not, then if so help me the strong right arm of 

my God, you shall be delivered into my hand. And if you do not 

repent, then will he awaken other watchers and renewers of the hedge 

in order to remove you out of the world. 

I admonish you, however. Leave us and our land in Mesopotamia, The heretics 
and all who are under the supremacy of the holy kingdom of the ee aa 
Romans, in peace and quiet; teach and confirm your evil heresy Empire. 
neither by writing nor by speech. And now may their blood and 
your own be on your head. Down with your name and your words 
and your deed, to the ground with it all. Otherwise shall the might of 
God find you out, and in his wrath and zeal shall he vex you. 


The Answer (of Magistros) to the letter of the Catholicos of the 
Syrians, at the time when he was duke in Vaspurakan’ and Taron’. 
After the Manicheans had been rooted out of the territory of the 
Greeks and from Thonrak, the remnant of this condemned race went 
to the Catholicos of the Syrians, to try and win him over by their 
deceit. He wrote a letter to Gregory Magistros Arschakuni .. . to 
which the following was in answer :— 


.... We have read the letter of those thieves and outcasts from 
the entire Catholic Church, which they had written to the holy 
Patriarch Petrus (1019-1058), and which thou hast communicated to 
us in thy wisdom. .... it appears to me to be an inspiration of God 
that nothing might be hidden from thy pure and exalted majesty. 

For God has made thee worthy of the struggle and campaign, in order - 
that thou, like the other fathers, thy predecessors, mightest take the 
field against the God-resisting sword of heretical wizardry and against 
the mischievous gabble of this obscure race. In such wise are these 
wolves in sheep’s clothing wont to steal children; against whom the 
Saviour announcing his divine promises warned us: ‘ Beware of those 
who are in sheep’s clothing, but within are ravening wolves.’ The 
Apostle also warns us against these evil workers. 

But do thou, holy Pontiff and successor of Jesus, in manly truth, Gregory 
read, if thou canst find it in thy District, the writing of the holy yecommends 
and thrice-blessed Vardapet Anania, which he wrote at the instance of Ananias and 
the Lord Catholicos of Armenia Anania, and also the writing of the Jonny ΒΕ ΒΊΗΣ 


1 Now province of Van, 2 Now Mish. 


Smbat’s 
history. 


A pupil of 
the Persian 
Mdjusik. 


Paulician 
rites, &c., 
described. 


Smbat lived 
in Thonrak. 


Armenian 
bishops join 
the sect. 


Paulicians 
reject the 
chrism in 


their ordina- 


tions. 


144 THE KEY OF ΕΘΗ 


Lord John, the overseer of Armenia, whose names we have written in 
this letter. From these thou wilt see the truth about this evil beast of 
prey, this bloodthirsty, sodomitic, whoring, lustful, phrensied, loathsome 
Smbat. This accursed one appeared in the days of the Lord John and 
of the Smbat Bagratuni: and he had learned his evil erroneous teaching 
from a Persian physician and astrologer, whom they called Mdyjusik. 
Can I say or write too much to you, a man who loves Christ? 1 will 
only put it in brief, in order to inform you of the whole plague of doubt 
in its monstrous transformations ; of their sly craft and childish want of 
education and godless doctrine; of their outlandish choice by consent?, 
of their nightly making of holy oil, of their grotesque declamations ; of 
their nightly crimes and of their strange and horrible and loathsome 
bearing of sufferings”; of their priest-makings without high priest, of 
their obscure ordination * and graceless baptism ; of their unilluminated 
gloom and hopeless confession of faith; their irreverent reverence, 
their darkness-loving illumination, their angel-like race of demons; 
these wolves in sheep’s clothing, these men turned into black he-goats, 
these wretches who are alienated from the Spirit and have put on Satan, 
who are become scholars of Smbat the false-cleric, that has shaken the 
foundation of the apostles and prophets—that Smbat, who (just as dogs 
and wolves according to him* appeared in the form of a priest but 
without priestly worth) came forth out of the district Tsalkotn ὃ from 
the village of Zarehavan, and lived in Thonrak. There he began 
to teach all the sum of evil that can possibly in this life come into 
a man’s head, omissions and neglect of every act as well as of all belief. 
He preached that one ought to annihilate or rather reckon as in vain 
all priestly functions. He himself assumed externally the position 
of a high priest, but did not venture to openly ordain for himself 
bishops or deacons, or to consecrate the oil, but said instead: All this 
is nonsense. However, in order to cajole the people, they employ 
bishops secretly fallen away and excluded from the Church to perform 
by night their worthless ordinations with nothing at all, while they 
disdain and make mock of the holy oil which is distributed by the 
Leader®. Therefore they are full of vices and indulge their sensual 
lusts, without finding anything to hinder them ; but in so far as they 
transmit all this, they hide their evil heresy like Pythagoras. For 
this θέων would not only not eat beans, but, to prevent himself from 
divulging the marvellous character of his creation, he bit off his tongue 
with his own teeth and died forthwith. So too these thieves never 
reveal by any sign their nest of destruction, but to any one who asks 
they point out another place and lead him astray. They stick fast in 


-error, and reckon it a bad tradition, that we should profess openly 


instead of believing in spirit only. And when Christians get hold of 
them they deny the accursed Smbat and those who succeeded him: 


1 Perhaps the agreement in regard to candidates for election is glanced at. 

2 This seems to refer to the pledge of the candidate for election, to take on 
himself all sufferings and pain. See p. 1006. 

3. Zit. ‘laying on of hands.’ 

* See the Key, ch. viii. p. 83. 

5 South of Ararat. Zarehavan, according to Indshidshian, p. 180, is a village 
in the Tchrgan province, which lies south of Bitlis (pula). Itwis; 
according to Indshidshian, inhabited by Persian Armenians. But dusqhaut 
province lies north of Ala Dagh, south-east of Alashgert, according to Alishian. 

6 i.e. Hegumenos, or orthodox patriarch of Armenia. 


APPENDIX III ἘΠΕ 


Thodros, Anane, Sargis, Cyrill, Joseph, Jesu. These are they who List of the 
lived in his sect, and who now already for more than 170 years have Heresiarchs. 
been anathematized by all Patriarchs of Armenia and Albania. The 

latter have warned us against approaching them, eating with them, 
speaking to them, entering their houses. For their wine is a bitter 

wine, and by the bitterness of their tongues you may know their 

grapes. From the garden of Sodom is their vine, and their shoot 

from Gomorrha. Never by their sweet and enticing words must they 

cajole your pure reason and clean hearing, for they begin with sweet 

words and end with wicked ones. Their words are soft as oil, and 

they themselves like arrows. With lures they hide their deadly hooks, 

and so catch the innocent. 

Thou hast written in thy divine letter that thou hast asked the 

people who lived near them, and that they had not allowed that they 
knew anything about them repugnant to Christian morals. I will 
explain the matter to thee, O divine Head!..... These (heretics) have 
written that they are being persecuted for a grudge. O lie, wonderful 
and astounding! If they be of us and of our creed, what is Obscurity of 
there to grudge them? What academy or doctrine? What famous the sect- 
men, bishops and fathers, what great cross-bearing brotherhoods? 
What monks withdrawn together in any narrower order, and bearing 
the cross? What hermits that have put on Christ, or honest people 
living on hill, or in dale or glen? What musical songs or melodies? 
What splendid well-ordered festivals and diverse fragrances (diiffte) ? 
What priestly robes with all the festive gatherings of the priesthood, 
when with all the array of shining clergy and deacons they surround the 
divine and holy altar? What power of holy oil for the divine call or 
for ordination? What most pure and bloodless victim to slay, or what 
others of the same kind appropriate to a gnosis consecrated like ours to 
Christ?) What worldly rule or worldly prerogatives? What products 
of talent or industry? What nobility inherited from ancestors? Are 
they rich in treasures, or do they form a separate people with language, 
king, and high priests? They are cut off from us, as the Georgians 
are from us and some from yourselves, for example the Nestorians and 
others. Ask with your own holy lips whether they can answer these 
charges. I know well that they will be dumb, and, though they are 
rational beings, will bay like dogs, or like brass will ring with an 
unmeaning and empty sound. 

But if thou wilt know the dark ground of their apostasy and 
malicious temper, learn that for long they have waited in their 
hopeless hope that the son of perdition will appear as their leader— 
he whom Jesus Christ will subdue with the breath of his mouth. 

These people, all the while that they confess openly and send envoys Its members 
to our pontiffs, enjoy themselves hugely over it. For we have seen eulwar 
with our own eyes and heard with our own ears—at times when they “"°'"” 
had no suspicion that we were acquainted with holy writ—how before 

bishops and congregations blasphemy would issue from many of their 

mouths, which we have not read in any divine books nor have heard 

from other slanderous tongues. They would say: ‘We are no wor- yet deny 
shippers of matter, but of God; we reckon the cross and the Church agente 
and the priestly robes and the sacrifice of mass all for nothing, and only system 

lay stress on their inner sense,’ and so forth. But in such language 


1 Here Gregory gives examples of famous liars from ancient history, which 
may be left out. 


Ῥ 


and profane 
the sacra- 
ment. 


Blasphemy 
against the 
Virgin. 


Lazar, the 
heresiarch. 


Gregory 
relates his 
persecution 
of the sect. 


under 
Constantine 
Monoma- 
chus. 


Gregory 
built a font 
at Thonrak, 


146 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


they deem worthless not mere details in our traditions received from 
Christ, but the whole of it is to them a fairy-tale and mere prattle. 
This is how one of them, openly a false priest, in controversy with one of 
our Church, spoke before the whole congregation : ‘ Ho, for your empty 
hope! What hope of Christians then have you got?’ And the others 
answered and said: ‘Such hope as is meet and befitting. But he 
went on with his godless utterances; for he took the paste, formed it 
in his hand, dipped it in the wine, and threw it away: ‘This is the 
fraud of you Christians.’ And that was Cyril, the cursed leader (or 
primate) of the Thonraki. But they indulge in many other blas- 
phemies against the holy virgin, the mother of God, and against all 
our mysteries (/7¢. economies). 

But we know that if thou shouldst refer to all this before these 
monsters, they will begin to condemn and to swear with all their 
might, and curse; for they have taken a vow to do so; and these 
Samaritan dogs, bloodthirsty brutes, are accustomed to such chicanery 
as this, for they know no law, and own no allegiance to the faith 
of Christ. 

As for this Lazar, who, blind himself, has undertaken to lead the 
blind, he has for many a year been dead in spirit. Christ could not 
awake him had he lain four days, but only the forerunner of the 
Antichrist, so that he may be extirpated from our Pérastnoz and 
Theme, and suffer a double expulsion. Send, I pray thee, people to 
our district, to the holy monks and to the laity, to the Christian 
communities of God, (and ascertain) what a plague and calamity he 
has brought upon the Church. Now I will inform thee, for I know 
thou hast heard how, when I reached Mesopotamia, I rooted out of 
the land the tares sown by them’. But then, seeing how the fouling 
of the water increased, I followed the stream to the source, and came 
to the fire-altar of Thonrak, where the leaven of the Sadducees was 
buried, and the hidden embers of wickedness blazed. There by the 
might of God, and at the prayer of our holy pontiff and illuminator 
and ancestor, at the behest of the Lord in the days of our holy 
emperor Constantine Monomachus, crowned by Christ, and sole ruler, 
I cleaned out the noxious growth of weeds. They came and confessed 
their guilt and errors and the wickedness of their godless leader to the 
extent of repudiating the gall of bitterness and the doubts of despair. 
Our holy bishops, one of whom was Ephrem, Archbishop of Bétjni, 
and others, advised that we should erect in their midst a font?, and 
bestow on them the participation in the Holy Spirit. Accordingly 
we confirmed them with the holy oil, in order that, by virtue of the 
hallowing voice of confession of the Trinity, the old men might be 
excluded and the young men attracted. And we enjoined them not to 
be subservient to that sect any more. We set up the symbol of the 
Lord in their midst, and communicated them in the divine and 
bloodiess offering of the divine sacrament. Those, however, who were 


* The Abbot Henry of Clairvaux, in his letter (A.D. 1178), gives a very 
similar account of his expedition to Albi ‘to admonish the prince of the 
country—namely, Roger of Beders, and to cleanse his whole country by driving 
out the heretics.” Just as the Paulicians of Armenia were called Thonraki 
because Thonrak was their centre and the burial-place of their founder, so the 
heretics of Languedoc were known as Albigeois. See Maitland’s Facts and 
Documents, p. 159. 

* This was needed for the baptism of Paulician children who would not 
receive baptism till they reached adult age. 


APPENDIX III 147 


baptized were over a thousand in number, nor did they cease to come and baptized 

to us for enlightenment, when they realized their guilt and understood 4 thousand 

the wicked heresy of those who misled their innocence. he 
But prior to the events narrated, two of their sham priests had led 

up to this emancipation by acknowledging all their wizardry and their 

wicked heresy. For they knew their wicked and monstrous leaders Two 

accurately, and had been their attendants in their beastly dirty hovels '"°2#¢*- 

in this burrow of foxes. They recounted to us word by word of their 

heresy, as it at present stands; for their wickedness was for ever 

on the increase, and is represented in three separate forms. To those The ‘per- 

who are more matured (or perfected)! in wickedness, and are able to feck υἴῃ ue 

receive the deadly poison, they preach a sort of utter despair and 

godlessness, such as we find among Epicureans. But others (are 

taught) after the manner of Manichees, whom they anathematize, at 

the same time that they pursue the same practices. To others they The heretics 

make a show of teaching in conformity with Christian tradition; yet {ued 

they themselves make no confession at all except of what is repugnant ἷ 

to all Christian ordinances and beliefs* And lastly, it is notorious 

that they are separated*, and wander about without bishops and 

without priests ; yet they make pretence, saying : ‘We are of the tribe 

of Aram, and agree with them in faith.’ But they in no way agree 

with us, but are much rather in opposition to us, and only resemble us 

in mere name as one dog does another *. What comparison can there 

be where natures are so wholly different? So I lay before your 

holiness our letter, written about these people. It has been enjoined 

not to approach these people, not to speak with them, not to admit 

them to confession or to baptism; and these decisions are confirmed. 

I however, trusting in the forgiveness of God and the precept of our 

holy illuminator, have opened to them a door of mercy and humanity. 

For the common people are not responsible for the deadly venom of 

wrath which (their leaders) have made ready. But now these mon- 

strous zealots, at the same time that they keep their poison-fangs 

hidden, write to us in a learned way, as if we did not know what is 

the laughing-stock of children, let alone of our wise men and publicists. 

They want to teach us, and so enumerate the groups of heretics one Paulicians 

after the other, and say: ‘ We do not belong to these ; those have long Selena 

ago broken connexion with the Church, and have been excluded.’ As the Church, 

withered limbs or hair fallen out or weeds uprooted or chaff winnowed ἔπαθον τὸ 

out, these indeed are gone, some before the time of 85. Epiphanius, at all. 

who mentions them in his holy book called the Paxarium, and after 

him by S. Cyril; others again later who have been described by others 

of our fathers. But as those fathers stigmatized the heretics of their 

times, so have our pontiff, the holy John® and the Vardapet Anania, How they 

stigmatized these of to-day, and have described their wicked, horrible Mier ΒΥ 

heresies. For these sin not merely in one or two points, but in their John and 

whole legislation stand altogether outside of the new and old law..... . Ananias. 

This sect drew not from two or three sources only, but embraced all that 


1 funnuplyuagnyup. Τὰ the Key, the same word expresses mature or 
adult age, and that is probably the sense here. 


2 A reference to the Paulician creed, see p. 94. 3 j.e. excommunicated. 
* Zit. ‘and are only indicated by a common-sounding name as dog and dog 
and dog.’ 


5 John of Otsun called them Paulicians, whence it is clear that Gregory 
Magistros identified the Paulicians and Thonraki. 


P2 


Smbat 
organized 
the sect. 


Thonraki are 
Paulicians, 
so called 
from Paul of 
Samosata. 


They were 
baptists, 


They exe- 
crate Peter 
and love 


Paul. 


Paulicians 
distinguished 
from the 
Arevordiq. 


Letters of 
Sectaries 
to Jesu. 


148 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


was ever heretical—soothsaying, palmistry, incantations and magic 
arts, infidelities, wicked poisons—all in the single brew of their heresy, 
when they consented to that enemy of God, that hedgebreaker, 
diabolical madman, Smbat, giving them their laws, and, quitting the 
path of illumination, entered a blind alley........ These are the crimes 
of these malefactors. No fasts are theirs, except out of fear; no 
differences do they observe between men and women, not even as 
regards the family, though they do not venture openly on this. They 
respect nothing, either of things divine or of things created ; but laugh 
all to scorn, the old law as well as the new. When, however, you ask 
them openly, they anathematize and swear vehemently and deny ; 
though we know well enough what a pretence all this is. 

Here then you see the Paulicians, who got their poison from Paul of 
Samosata. When we take on ourselves to question them, they say: 
‘We are Christians.’ They are for ever sing-songing*, quoting the 
Gospel and the Apostolon; and when we ask: ‘Why do you not allow 
yourselves to be baptized, as Christ and the apostles enjoined?’ they 
answer: ‘ You do not know the mystery of baptism; we are in no hurry 
to be baptized, for baptism is death?; and Jesus in the evening meal 
spoke not of an offering of the mass, but of every table’ They say: 
‘We love Paul, and execrate Peter; also Moses saw not God, but the 
devil’ That is to say, they hold Satan to be the creator of heaven 
and earth, as well as of the whole human race and of all creation; yet 
they call themselves Christians. 

Look now at some others, at Persian magi of (the stock of) Zoroaster 
the Magus; nay, rather at the Sun-worshippers envenomed by these, 
whom they call the Arevordi. In your district are many of them, and 
they also openly proclaim themselves to be Christians. Yet we know 
that you are aware what error and lewdness they practise. And some 
there are of this accursed tribe of Thonraki, who call themselves 
Kaschetzi?; they also are a root of wickedness. The Thonraki in 
Khnun*‘ find in Christ an occasion for blasphemy; that is, they write 
that Christ was circumcised, but the Thulaili reject that, and say: ‘We 
confess no circumcised God. But I would have you know that at 
heart they do not own him God, whether circumcised or not; but they 
only make of it a pretext for calumniating us. 

In this connexion I will inform thy holiness. Those priests, who 
came forward and made known their heresies, and who were first 
baptized, and took the names of Polycarp and Nicanor, informed us 
that the letters which had come from various districts to the godless 
leader Jesu, were to be found in those hovels of lewdness. ‘Make 
haste,’ they said, ‘seize and read them, and you will find in them the 
perversities of these devilishly minded men.’ Well, we looked for 
them, found and read them; and they were full of wicked magic and 
lewdness; and this among other things has been made a ground of 
complaint against us. 

In that dog-kennel*, however, there lived men clad as monks, and 
a multitude of whorish women. So we ordered their roof-trees to be 
thrown down and burned, and the tenants of them to be hunted out of 


' Or, ‘chanting like psalms.’ 

2 The Paulicians of course meant ‘ death to sin,’ following St. Paul. 

: husk ghp, i.e. dwellers in Kashé. 1 fubach. 

5. Dr. Mkrttschian suggests that this is the Κυνὸς χώρα of the Greek sources; but 
this is very doubtful. Gregory merely wants a term of abuse to apply to Thonrak. 


APPENDIX III 149 


our marches. To none of them, however, did we do any bodily harm, 
although the law prescribes that they should suffer the extreme of 
punishment. And, prior to ourselves, many generals and magistrates 
have given them over to the sword, and, without pity, have spared 
neither old men nor children ; and quite rightly. What is more, our 
patriarchs have branded their foreheads, and burned into them the 
image of a fox!; for they resemble the thievish foxes which rob the 
vineyard, as the sage remarked. Others again have put their eyes 
out. ‘You are blind,’ they said, ‘to spiritual things; therefore you 
shall not look on sensible things.’ But for all that they have not been 
able to check the growth of their lust, nor to direct back into the 
bounds of legality their imbecile undisciplined mode of living according 
to their phrensied temper. On the contrary, with idle hypocrisy, they 
have appropriated to themselves the language and false signs of 
priesthood ; by way of constructing a sort of bridge to lead wayfarers 
to destruction, or a gin, a bird-net, or snare, in order that the innocent 
may fall into a pit. 

So we warn thy holiness to be on thy guard against their Sadducean 
leaven and their nasty meats and words. Deign not to set the cross 
on their heads. Likewise let not the bishops and priests in thy diocese 
(do so), lest they unwittingly fall under the anathema of the Fathers. 
But send to us with thy recommendation those who confess to their 
evil deeds and wizardry, and have broken away from their evil workers 
and presbyters; so that they may come to us and receive baptism. 
In any other case thou shalt not have mercy on them, or have any 
communication with them, or deign to look on them; but, like thy 
fathers and brothers like-minded with thee, curse them whenever 
they come into thy mind. So much for them. 


Magistros also wrote the following in regard to the Manicheans in 
another of his letters :— 


Gone astray through their vain imaginings, they sophisticate many 
in the whirligig of their fanciful notions, and patch up the doubts 
which suggest themselves to them into an idle web of tittle-tattle ; 
so far forth as they represent our worship of God as a worship of idols. 
As if we, who honour the sign of the cross and the holy pictures, were 
still engaged in worshipping devils. And some of them teach this in 
open preachings, others hatch it up in their thoughts as a leaven of 
unbelief and wickedness. And many of them spare not to lay hands 
on the church, on all priestly functions, on our awful exalted sacrament 
of the divine body and blood. But all this derives from those scholars 
of the Manicheans, who, having been utterly cut off from God, and 
having no hope of resurrection, are named Thonraki. But thou who 
art a Christian, having been made worthy ἦ of the calling and of being 
glorified through the holy font, hast in thyself the hope of resurrection, 
and dost pray to the Holy Trinity—when thou seest the sign of the 
cross thou shalt pray, because it reminds thee that Jesus Christ was 
crucified for thee; and thou must regard thyself as crucified along 
with him’. In its presence thou shalt lay aside all earthly thoughts, and 


1 See p. 138, above. 

2 Magistros is addressing a renegade from the Paulician Church, who had 
recanted and been baptized by the orthodox Armenians. 

3. This was the Paulician doctrine. 


Past perse- 
cutions of 
the sect. 


Paulician 
Presbyterse 


Paulician 
iconoclasm. 


How to 
regard 
crosses 


and pictures 
of saints. 


150 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


greet it with pure lips, and say: ‘Christ, thou Son of God, be thou 
merciful to me through this holy symbol in spirit and in body, and 
bethink thee that we are bought by thy blood, for thou didst ransom us 
through thy cross.’ But thou shalt honour the pictures of the saints, 
and in thy prayers shalt meditate upon their sufferings and martyrs’ 
deaths, submitting thyself to them as thy teachers. They are related 
to thee, and have become witnesses of the truth. So shalt thou invoke 
them as thine intercessors before the true God; in order that he who 
sleeps not may, according to thy trust in his servant the martyr, pity 
thee who lovest the martyrs. 

Now will I in a few words lead into the right path and purify thine 
evil thoughts and hidden magical beliefs. And as thou art inclined 
to reckon this confession as something artificial and wrong, I will 
begin at the beginning, and set before thee the truth concisely: 
In the beginning the tree of life was honoured in Paradise..... 
Bere BUREN OMe ‘like all signs and wonders which were wrought by 
Joshua and the ark of the covenant. Examine them profoundly, that 
you may understand that you believe neither in the Old nor in the 
New Testament, and are not worthy to be a God-seeing Israelite, 
a son of Abraham, who believed in God, and it was reckoned to him 
for righteousness; nor one of us either who were heathen and for 
whom the light is risen. Recognize rather that thou art still in dark- 
ness, blind and without guide, at the same time that thou regardest 
all of us who are obedient to God and venerate his laws, and are 
subject to his bidding, as blind, privately abusing and calumniating us. 
Although then thou venturest not to meet us openly, yet in thy secret 
and darkling mind thou art sick, led astray, and reeling in unbelief. 
Hear me now, and lighten the eyes of thy spirit; walk in the path of 
our founder, and of the patriarchs, of the prophets and apostles, of the 
martyrs and holy church-teachers, and hear Moses (who saith): 
‘There shall be found in thy house no weight too great or too little ; 
rather shall all be in the open before us and our children, and in 
secret before God the Father.’ 

We will then adhere to our confession of hope, and, illuminated 
with the light of his countenance, will walk in light; that the mercy of 
his loving-kindness may fall on us, and we fall asleep and wake in the 
hope that we may with resplendent mien walk before the Lord on 
the clouds in the ether, and praise Christ, who is God and our hope of 
resurrection, along with Father and Holy Spirit, to whom be honour 
and glory, power and dominion, for ever and ever. Amen. 


Magistros returns to the subject in a letter ‘To a deacon of the Lord 
Peter”, in the following words :— 


I am fain to write to thee somewhat about the distressing breaking- 
up of our heavenly and sanctifying religion. For in consequence of 
the wicked insurrection excited by the evil wizardry of the Manicheans 
and of many other sects, this land is sunk in barbarism and darkness, 
and overhung with thick clouds. 


' Gregory then enumerates, from his own point of view, all the objects men- 
tioned in the Old Testament in order, deducing from them the propriety of 
image worship. 

* Cod. Arm, 4 of the Munich Library, pp. 170-172. 


APPENDIX III I5I 


Also in another letter ‘About a monk named Schapuli’, who held 
himself to be wise’ (and was not), he writes as follows :— 

As if you alone knew of the Church that it signifies combats and Significance 
assemblies! Who is ignorant of that? But this same Church is also eae word 

. . . τοῦ. 

place and cause of redemption, and instrument of all works of healing 
for all of us. ... 1 know well that most of this is, as you write, 
calumny and lies ; but a little deviation from the right path may lead 
far astray. 


These two letters prove, as Dr. Mkherttschian remarks, in what 
a ferment men’s minds then were. They have not, he continues, 
been noticed, because the name Thonraki does not occur in them. 
But we meet with this in another letter of Gregory ‘To the Vardapet 
Sargis 2,’ in which he enumerates his own merits, and exclaims :— 


Tell me, my friend, how by the grace of God and the prayers of our 
illuminator and ancestor, the column raised by the Manicheans, i.e. 
the Thonraki, has been overthrown by my humble agency, and the Gregory's 
light of God spread abroad; and that after these people had for more destruction 
than 200 years infested the whole land, and raised up the fire-altar of BEE ae 
their lust and lewdness, and all the time Christ’s flock was neglected ; 
by pastors and heads ef pastors, by kings and princes, and well nigh by 


all men. 


SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO PAGE 142. 


M. Eritzean of Tiflis, in his article on the Thonraki in the Journal Phords 
(see Proleg. § 1), cites a somewhat different text of Gregory Magistros’ letter to 
the Thulaili, which on p. 142 supplements the copy used by Dr. Mkherttschian. 
In the third paragraph of that page after the words: ‘ We laugh at such an 
idea,’ add the following: ‘ We must not admit you, since you have deceitfully 
made your way into the Church in order to ensnare the innocent. Although 
you haye written that you have cursed and curse Smbat, still your anathemas 
are worth nothing like your blessings. We know well that you respect neither 
Smbat nor any one else.’ 


1 Cod. Arm. 4 of the Munich Library, pp. 172-174. 
2 Tbid., pp. 184-186. 


ACR PEN Die 


JOHN OF OTZUN 


JOHN of Otzun was born about 688 in the town of Otzun, in the 
province of Tascir, in Great Armenia. He became Catholicos of 
Armenia in 718. In the following year a synod was held at Twin in 
Ararat, then the seat of the Armenian patriarchate, before which he 
delivered an Oratio Synodalis. In a part of this oration, ch. xii, 
which is unfortunately lost, he condemned the Paulicians. The title 
of this chapter is alone preserved in the preface of the MS., and runs 
as follows: ‘Reprehensio in eos qui crucem benedicere, easque oleo, 
quod myvon vocatur, linire vetant.’ 

At the same synod he published thirty-two canons, of which the 
last is directed against the Paulicians, and is as follows, according to 
the Latin translation which confronts the Armenian text in the Venice 
(San Lazaro) edition of 1834 :— 


Neminem decet in pessimae obscaenorum hominum sectae locis, 
qui vocantur Pauliciani, diversari, illisve adhaerere, aut eos alloqui, 
aut ad invicem visitari; sed ab illis omnino recedere, eos execrari, et 
odio prosequi; quoniam filii Satanae sunt, aeternique ignis fomites, 
atque abalienati ab amore voluntatis Creatoris. Quod si quis illis 
adhaeserit, et dilectionem atque amicitiam cum iisdem fecerit, iste 
omnino puniendus est, gravique poena est plectendus, donec resi- 
puerit, atque in fide convaluerit. Sin autem recidivus in id fuerit 
deprehensus, hunc praecipimus penitus excommunicari, et foras, ceu 
pestem, ex Ecclesiae Christi membris eiici, ne vadix amaritudinis 
sursum germinans tmpedtat, et per tllam tnguinentur multz. 


About the same time he wrote a tract against the Paulicians, of 
which I give only the relevant portions :— 


Ecce enim repertus est, tamquam aucupii rete, laqueus extensus 
inter suae ipsius gentis populum ad decipiendos rudes simplicesque ex 
hominibus, qui ex malo ad peius assurgentes ascenderunt, ex insectan- 
dis nimirum Imaginibus ad insectandam Crucem, et ad odio prose- 
quendum Christum, atque exinde ad atheismum et ad daemonis 
cultum. Praeterea insidiantes invenerunt malitiae suae arma ad 
iugulandas Christi amatorum animas, inito cum tyrannis circumcisis 
pacto, docent tyronum suorum coetum illorum libros obscuritatum 
fabularumque refertos. Qui enim per suam ipsorum perversitatem 


APPENDIX IV 153 


gavisi sunt cum diabolo amicitiam inire, haud mirum est, illos cum 
eius quoque satellitibus unanimiter familiaritatem contrahere. 

Huiusmodi porro homines ob rectae et a Deo nobis _traditae 
religionis claritatem mussitantes foedissimis labiis suis conviciari nos 
audent, nos idololatras nuncupantes ob cultum, quem dominico 
Crucis signo exhibemus. Celeberrimum namque illud signum indi- 
scriminatim ex quibusvis materiis firmo consilio extruimus: estque 
sane signum Cherubim quoque terribile atque venerabile, medela 
spiritalibus aeque ac corporalibus nostris infirmitatibus; daemones 
autem terrore ac tremore afficiens. Praeterea nos audacter ob 
depictam Incarnati Verbi Dei imaginem audent vituperare ; insanientes 
ac furentes ex malo infidelitatis spiritu nobis obiiciunt sanctorum 
prophetarum verba ad refutandam gentilium idololatriam prolata ; 
atque intellectu sane obcaecati nequeunt perspicere quaenam sit cultus 
nostri similitudo cum gentium polytheismo. Nos enim solius Uni- 
geniti Filii Dei imaginem, Signumque victoriae colimus: ethnicos 
autem per infinitos, innumerosque cultus seduxit diabolus. 

Postquam igitur luculentissime idololatrarum stultitiam denudavimus, 
non amplius opus est, ut alio novo nomine eos, de quibus iste sermo 
loquitur, designemus ; eiusdem rei namque cooperatio ante oculos 
posita novae nuncupationis non indiget. Solem enim adorantes cum 
115, qui illum colunt, consociantur: murium captoribus cultum prae- 
bentes, in eorum foveam, qui equum et canem sibi deos elegerunt, 
impulsi ruunt, aut in Aegyptiorum fluvium bestiarum nutritium 
immerguntur. In tenebris tenebricosas perpetrantes turpitudines, 
provoluti in Persicum materni stupri coenum sese impingunt; aut 
procidentes ipsa execrabilia Chamos et Astarthae idola deprecantur. 
Laudibus efferentes irruptiones ignis gehennae a diabolo prunarum 
excitatore accensae cum Ianne, et Mambre in Olympio monte humi 
prostrati, atque ore spumantes inclinati daemonem adorant. Infantium 
sanguini similam commiscentes illegitimam communionem deglutiunt ; 
quo pacto porcorum suos foetus immaniter vescentium exsuperant 
edacitatem. 

Quique illorum cadavera super tecti culmen celantes, ac sursum 
oculis in caelum defixis respicientes, iurant alieno verbo ac sensu: 
Altissimus novit. Solem vero deprecare volentes, aiunt: So/ici/e, 
Lucicule; atque aereos, vagosque daemones clam invocant, iuxta 
Manichaeorum Simonisque incantatoris errores. Similiter et primum 
parientis faeminae puerum de manu in manum inter eos invicem 
proiectum, quum pessima morte occiderint, illum, in cuius manu 
exspiraverit puer, ad primam sectae dignitatem provectum venerantur ; 
atque per utriusque nomen audent insane iurare: 7270, dicunt, fer 
unigenitum filium: et iterum: Testem habeo tibi gloriam eius, in 
cuius manum unigenitus filius spiritum suum tradidit. 

In primis, incestuosae Paulicianorum gregis sordescentes reliquiae, 
obiurgationem sane sustinuerunt a Nersete Catholico, sed minime 
resipiscentes, post illius obitum aufugientes, alicubi in quibusdam 
regionis nostrae finibus latitarunt. Ad quos iconomachi quidam ab 
Alvanorum Catholicis repraehensi advenientes adhaeserunt ; aberrans 
siquidem a veritate consimiles sibi attigere cupit. Antequam autem 
subsidium hi penes antichristi praecursores invenissent, trepidantes 
pertimescebant rectam eximiamque Christianorum religionem: quin 
immo seipsum condemnat impius a cogitationibus suis exagitatus. 
Quum autem istud ceu magnum quoddam ac novum, quod iam vetus 
erat atque obsoletum, consequutos fuisse arbitrati sunt; tunc ex 


154 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


insidiarum suarum cubilibus obrepti in medio regionis atque per 
loca populis referta irruere ausi sunt; atque haec suffocantium diluvii 
aquarum portio confluit ad locum Djirga nuncupatum ; ibique ac- 
currentes undequaque congregati sunt, tamquam regionis vultures 
super Corruptum quoddam cadaver. Sui autem nominis sordes inferre 
ausi sunt 115, qui caelestia bona per spem arripiunt, electis ex homi- 
nibus, atque divina habitatione dignis inventis, qui super terram 
caelestium vitam agere agerediuntur. Contra hos audacter evomere 
praesumunt impietatis suae bilem, atque insanientes, ex mali spiritus 
blasphemia, Scz/pticolas (eos) vocant. 

Nullum sustineo dedecus ob illud, quo me contemnere censent, 
nomen recte perceptum: revera siquidem exculpimus, caelamus, cudi- 
mus, dolamus ea, quibus religionis nostrae sacra perficiuntur, Eccle- 
sias, altaria, cruces, imagines; nec tamen per ista participes fimus 
Ethnicorum cultibus. Nam eorum delubra in idolorum receptacula 
condebantur; Ecclesiae vero sunt piorum orationis ac supplicationis 
aedes et loca congregationis eorum, qui ad Deum accedere volunt. 
Quamobrem valde differunt inter se templum Dei, et fanum idolo- 
rum; sicut et Paulus dicit. Praeterea eorum manufacta a vitio 
quodam originem, ut iam dixi, sumentia exculpta fuere; et cujus- 
cumque facinoris daemon ingressus, habitationem suam efficiebat 
1101} ΠΑ Τῆς οἷς τὸ νι ὠς, τυ es ieee nn 

Num quando video lapideam aut auream Crucem elaboratam vel 
imaginem, in lapide forsitan aut in auro ponam spem meam? Id 
illorum est, qui cum lapide et ligno moechabantur, sicut Propheta 
ait; de quibus et David dixit: Szmulacra Gentium argentum, et 
aurum. Nos autem illas dumtaxat, super quas expressimus simili- 
tudinem imaginis Christi Crucisque eius, a quibusvis materiis 
secretas honoramus. Etenim nomen, et similitudo nobis utrumque 
suadet, Christum nempe in iis habitare, atque nos illas sine haesita- 
tione venerari. Neque id tantummodo, verum et Sacerdotis manus, 
ac verba sanctissimam Trinitatem super eas invocantia eius habitare 
fAclunt WITtUtenicn 1-5 4: eee eeeaey ae : athe 5. τ ᾿ς 

Quare ecce nos per Apostolorum praedicationem credentes in 
sanctissimam Trinitatem consideramus per olei unctionem instru- 
menta salutis, Ecclesias, altaria, cruces, imagines; et credimus una 
simul cum eo divinam virtutem introire. 


The following is from the Oratio Synodalis referred to above :— 


Praeter haec istud quoque apud nonnullos vidimus malum opus 
a consuetudine roboratum. Ad matrimonium accessuri non adducun- 
tur iuxta Christianorum legem in Ecclesias, ut universorum rituum 
religiosarumque Christifidelium disciplinarum participes effecti, ibidem 
in locis decentibus coronentur; sed sine missa, et sine oratione, et 
absque benedictione, communioneque foris manent, ubicumque volue- 
rint. Sacerdos autem per cuiusvis illuc pergentis manum deferri 
iubet coronam, contemnens tum coronam tum coronatos, quodque 
hisce gravius est, Sacramentum ipsum ignominia afficiens. Et sane 
sanctus Apostolus dicit: Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem 
dico in Christo, et in Ecclesia: ille vero arrogantia sua parvipendere 
conatur magnum nobilis connubii mysterium, seque ipsum a Dei 
ministratione depositum iugo subiicit ; qui enim populi Dei servitium 
abiicit, Deo non servit. 


159 


APPENDIX V 


NERSES SHNORHALI 


NERSES SHNORHALI (the Graceful) was born about 1100, and was 
elected Catholicos of Armenia 1165; died 1173. Because he made 
Rom. Claj, Ρωμαίων Κοῖλα, the seat of his patriarchal church, he is also 
known as Nerses Clajensis. The letter in which he refers to the 
Paulicians was written before 1165, but after he was already a bishop, 
to Ariuz, prince of the town of Thelkuran. It is devoted to the errors 
then current among the Armenian clergy and congregations in the 
province of Hamaj in Syrian Mesopotamia. I cite from Capelletti’s 
Version, Venice, 1833. 

Nersetis Claiensis Epistola I. :— 


Praeterea audivimus, quod nonnulli ex fallentibus Sacerdotibus 
iterum excitant faetidam maledicti Sembatis Tontraghensis celatam 
immunditiam, in audientium ruinam, dicentes: ‘Ecclesia non est illa, 
quae ab hominibus aedificata est, sed nos tantum: atque liber 
Rituale, et Canones, qui in eo continentur, Crucis et Ecclesiae 
benedictio, et alia, non sunt admittenda.’ 

Adversus eos sane, qui hoc similiaque dicunt, laboraverunt illius 
temporis Doctores, sapienterque scripserunt, eorumque falsitatem 
satis diluerunt: et qui Beati Ananiae Nareghensis doctoris librum 
adversus maledictum Sembatem legit, integram habet hisce blas- 
phemiis responsionem. Breviter tamen ac~celeriter nos quoque 
pauca dicemus, ne ab erroneis eorum dictis rudes e populo deci- 
piantur. (c. iv.) 

De crucis autem benedictione istud intelligite. Sancti Apostoli, et 
Patres. Apostolorum successores eumdem Spiritum habentes sic 
agebant: Quadrialatam Crucem ex quavis materia effectam coram 
locabant, atque impositis super eam manibus offerebant preces, prout 
Spiritus dabat eloqui illis iuxta temporis necessitatem; ut sensibilis 
illa materia spiritualem Dei virtutem exciperet; et post haec ad 
Orientem illam erigebant, ac fidelibus, ut eam adorarent, praecipie- 
bant. Atque ex hisce Crucibus perquam maxima prodibant signa 
et virtutes ; sicut in libris narratur. 

Quum autem fidelibus imminutae sunt visibiles Spiritus gratiae, 
ab accipientium infirmam fidem; id pulcherrime ab eodem Spiritu 
moti excogitarunt, ut super extructam Crucem legant Sacerdotes 
spiritualium Prophetarum, et Apostolorum, et Evangelistarum verba 
ex ipsorum parte; atque offerant Sacerdotes scriptas postulationis 
preces, quasi per os illorum dicerentur; lavent (Crucem) aqua et 


156 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


vino ad similitudinem fontium, qui de latere in prima Cruce mana- 
runt; atque Chrismate liniant in unctionem Spiritus sanctitatis: ut 
per Spiritus Sancti gratiam, et per intercessionem illorum, quorum 
verba super (ea) legunt, nominaque commemorant, eamdem divinam 
virtutem in illius Crucis figura inhabitet, sicuti prius in efformatis 
a Sanctis. Quo facto, Christus deinceps adorandus est in illa; non 
materia, sed Verbi Dei virtus, quam ab eo inseparabilem nos ado- 
rantes credimus. Qui eam vero absque huiusmodi benedictionibus 
adorant ; materiam tantummodo, non Dei virtutem adorant. Etenim 
plures sunt figurae in Crucis formam effectae in coelo, et in terra, 
in insipientibus quoque animantibus, et super textile, et super varie- 
gatas picturas, quas adorandi mandatum non accepimus. Haud enim 
in ipsis divinae adsunt virtutes; et eum, qui creaturae adorationem 
tribuit, Sacri libri sub anathemate, paganorum instar, condemnarunt. 

Si quis autem ex opponentibus contradixerit ob Chrismatis unc- 
tionem, utpote quae est superflua, et inconveniens: de hoc etiam 
dicamus, quod Chrisma prae se fert symbolum ac virtutem Spiritus 
Sancti. (c. v.) 

Itaque, o tu Christifidelis, quotiescumque Crucem aspexeris, 
agnosce et crede, Christum super eam intueri sedentem; at quum 
oraveris ante illam, crede, Christum te alloqui, non autem, quae 
loqui nequit, materiam. Christus enim est, qui tuam excipit ado- 
rationem Cruci exhibitam; ipseque est, qui audit orationem oris tui, 
et implet petitionem cordis tui, quam postulas in fide. Et qui 
Crucem inhonorat vel blasphemat, Christum blasphemasse et in- 
honorasse, credat, minime vero visibilem materiam; atque ab eo 
expectet vel hic, vel in altero suo adventu cum illis, qui eum cruci- 
fixerunt, et cum infidelibus vindictae retributionem suscipere. (c. vi.) 

Circa autem Ecclesiae benedictionem, de qua sicut ab oppositio- 
ribus audivimus, non esse opus dicitur, utpote quae a primis Patribus 
statuta non est, sed a novissimis, et penes tantum Armenios ; quid- 
quid de Crucis mysterio diximus et de Ecclesia intelligite. (c. vil.) 

Quod autem dicunt: Index non est acceptabilis; quippe non ab 
antiquis Patribus, sed ultimis temporibus a quodam Mastotz scriptus 
ac statutus fuit; falsum est, haudquaquam verum. Quidquid enim 
in eo praecipitur, a priscis Patribus statutum est; nonnihil a nostris 
Iluminatoribus, nonnihil ab aliarum gentium Patriarchis; quorum 
cuiuslibet nomina initio uniuscuiusque Canonis sunt inscripta. Beatus 
autem Mastotz in unum librum Canones inter se divisos collegit; 
ideoque eius nomine ipsemet liber vocatur. Verum etiamsi ab eodem 
Sancto Mastotz fuissent universi dictati, quare non sunt accepta- 
biles?... Vel damnum quod exinde est, ostendant; vel seipsos 
adversarios Christi eiusque legis declarent, a quibus omnis divina 
gratia, quae in Indice conscribitur, baptismi lavacrum, et sancta 
consecratio, et communio sancti Sacramenti vivifici, et Christiana 
sepultura auferatur. 

Vos autem, o Dei populi, Nosterque in Christo rationalis Grex, 
recedite ab hisce lupis ovina pelle contectis; atque huiusmodi 
homines, qui divinis adversantur Sanctorum Patrum legibus, a Pro- 
vincia vestra expellite; ne vos a vera traditione, atque ab lesu 
Christi fide deficere faciant; neve diaboli zizania in divino veritatis 
verbi frumento seminent. (c. viii.) 


Perhaps also the following passage from his Pastoral Epistle to the 
Armenian nation is aimed at the Paulicians. It is from ch. ix of that 


APPENDIX V 157 


epistle, and addressed ‘To the country-folk and poor people,’ among 
whom Paulician propaganda was most active. For note that it regards 
some sectaries who, without being Mahomedans (here called /7z/de/es), 
spurned the faith, especially baptism and the priest who baptized. 
These false teachers evidently taught those who had been baptized as 
infants that their baptism was null and void. It is as follows :— 


Item ne faciatis linguas vestras instrumentum Satanae improbis 
amarisque blasphemiis, maxime quae animam potius, fontisque 
lavacrum ac baptizantem Sacerdotem, et vultum, et os contaminant ; 
quia plus quam abnegationem et circumcisionem magnum est hoc 
peccatum. Infideles enim, qui fidem abnegare cogunt Christianum, 
non instigant, ut Deus contemnatur; qui vero fidem spernit, non 
spernit hominem sed Deum, quia fides cuiuscumque Deum adorantis 
est Deus ipse, et qui spernit baptisma ac Sacerdotem baptizantem, 
huiusmodi contemptus fit Spiritui Sancto, in ipso enim per fontem 
nascuntur baptizati; et qui hominis animam ac vultum contemnit, 
haec blasphemia ad Deum refertur, quia anima est a Deo afflata, 
et vultus est Dei imago, quemadmodum et os pariter Corpus excipit 
ac Sanguinem Christi. JVo/¢te igitur contristare Spiritum Sanctum 
Dei, hisce foedis obscoenisque verbis, ne Spiritus Dei, qui in vobis 
per fontem habitavit, elongetur a vobis, et intret loco ipsius habitet- 
que in cordibus vestris spiritus Satanae. 


Nerses also glances at the Paulicians in his Lzbel/us Confessionis 
fidet Ecclesiae Armenae, written, 1165, at the request of Alexius, the 
chief Duke of the Imperial Army, and son-in-law of the Emperor 
Manuel. The passage is this :— 


Dictum erat in epistola etiam circa Sanctorum imagines, quasi Armenil 
eas omnino non admittant ; atque in hac parte, quae sit veritas, mani- 
feste exponamus. Ex repugnantia, quae est inter utramque nationem 
plura mala Diabolus seminavit; sicut etiam apud nonnullos, e rudi 
nostro populo, aversionem a Sanctis imaginibus. Huiusmodi tamen 
homines vituperantur a Nobis; immo eos, qui blasphemare praesu- 
munt, anathemate percutimus. Nos enim, qui regendi gradum tene- 
mus, accipimus et adoramus imagines Salvatoris nostri incarnati ; 
honore prosequimur et Sanctorum imagines; juxta uniuscuiusque 
ordinem ; eas quoque in Ecclesiis nostris et super Sacrificii vestes 
pingimus ; ignorantes autem et insipientes e nostris, qui easdem non 
excipiunt, reprehendimus et castigamus. 


And in his Resfonsio ad Epistolam Manuelis, § vii, p. 226, he again 
glances at the Paulicians, who are the zgvorantes guidam e nostris. 
The passage is as follows : — 


Item et quoad Salvatoris eiusque Sanctorum imaginem ab igno- 
rantibus quibusdam e nostris aversio ostenditur; Vosque inde 
scandalizamini, ceu legem universae Genti a Nobis impositam arbi- 
trantes. Verum Nos, quique iuxta Nos sunt, ita habemus et prae- 
dicamus, quemadmodum videntes Crucem, quae Deum _ sustinuit, 
haud materiae visibili, sed invisibili Deo in ipsa posito adorationem 
exhibemus ; ita de Salvatoris imagine, haud materiam et colores, sed 
Christum, qui invisibilis Dei Patris imago est, per ipsam adoramus. 
Imagines vero Sanctorum colimus et glorificamus, eos habendo ad- 
vocatos mediatoresque coram Deo. 


158 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


The same Nerses has preserved to us our only account of the 
Manichean Armenians. It is in his twentieth letter. It is worth 
noticing that the Manichean baptism, where it had been conferred, 
is recognized by Nerses as valid: ‘qui ex illis baptizati non fuerint, 
inter catechumenos collocate. It would appear, however, that these 
Manicheans deferred baptism to an adult age, as the children and 
infants were not yet baptized. In the case of the adult but still 
unbaptized members of the sect, baptism was to be put off till they 
had repented and believed. Not so in the case of the very young. 
Alcuin’s advice in respect of the reception of the northern barbarians 
into the Church was similar. I print the relevant parts of the 
Letter of Nerses :— 


EPISTOLA XX. 


Eiusdem Domini Nersetis Catholict epistola ad urbem Samosatam 
οὗ Solis-Filiorum conversionem. 


Scitote, quod ad Nos olim pervenit epistola ex vobis circa Solis- 
Filios in urbe vestra degentes, qui volunt et postulant, ut ad Christi 
fidem admittantur: quippe qui, sicut gente et lingua Armenii sunt, 
ita iisdem et fide et anima in eadem concordia similes esse cupiunt. 
Venerunt etiam ex illis quidam coram Nobis, eademque supplica- 
tionis verba nobiscum locuti sunt. Nos vero illis ostendimus quid- 
quid de eorum secta daemoniorum cultrice ex libris perlegeramus, 
et quidquid de ipsis ex eorum fautorum fama audiveramus, pluraque 
verbo et opere mala. Nam sicut inter Graecos Polomelitae obcae- 
cati remanserunt inter gloriosam lucem Evangelii Christi, et abscon- 
ditam in corde habentes Satanae sectam minime obtemperarunt 
Apostolorum praedicationibus ; ita pariter et in Gente nostra So/zs- 
Filii in diabolicarum tenebrarum parte manentes noluerunt a divina 
luce illuminari per sanctum Illuminatorem nostrum Gregorium; sed 
dilexerunt magis tenebras, guam lucem usque in hodiernam diem. 

Porro si nostris temporibus in bono deficientibus misertus est 
illorum Deus, et obscuratum animae eorum oculum aperuit, ut dae- 
moni abrenuntiarent, atque ad Deum non dolo sed veritate con- 
fugerent ; Dei benignitatem laudemus. Ita quidem et isti, qui ad Nos 
venerunt, solemni iureiurando improbam respuerunt Sectam, atque 
ore suo quemlibet anathematizarunt, qui penes se absconditum 
huiusmodi atheismum servaverit. Et quidquid eis praecepimus, 
omnino exceperunt implendum. 

Itaque divino iussu id faciendum illis, arbitrati sumus. Veniant 
omnes Sacerdotes una cum honorabilibus discipulis nostris in maiori 
Ecclesia, quae est in civitate, et congregentur huiusmodi So/zs-F7/z2, 
omnes, viri et mulieres et pueri ad Ecclesiae ianuam; atque primum 
eos interrogate: Vultis ex toto corde, et ex tota anima, et ex totis 
viribus vestris recedere a primo vestrorum patrum errore, atque ad 
veram Dei cognitionem, ad Christianitatem redire?— Et quum id 
susceperint, et dixerint: Libenter et ultro disiungimur a diabolicis 
patrum nostrorum fraudibus, atque ad Christum confugimus :—tunc 
rursus illos ter interrogate, sicut Catechumeni in hora baptismi: 
Abrenuntiatis Satanae?...et omnibus cogitationibus et verbis et 
operibus eius?— Et quum assenserint, et dixerint: Abrenuntiamus : 
vertite eorum facies ad Occidentem, et dicite: Ter expuite in faciem 


APPENDIX V 159 


diaboli, eumque contemnite, ceu immundum et falsum et iniustum. — 
Quum autem id fecerint, docete eos postea, nihil aliud existimare 
solem, nisi juminare mundi, quod Deus Creator creavit, et posuit 
in coelo ad illuminandam terram. Item et luna et stellae. Populum 
autem ne colatis plus quam salicem aut fagum aut aliam ex arboribus, 
et ne credatis populeum fuisse Crucis Christi lignum. 

Neque tantum populeam arborem plus quam alias ne colatis; 
quin immo eam plus quam alias arbores contemnendam existimate : 
unde Satanas ipse contemnetur. Et si quis vestrum nosceret apud 
eos diabolicum quodpiam amuletum, id quoque palam facite, ac 
respuendum abiiciendumque eis indicate. 

Deinde facies eorum ad Orientem vertite, eosque interrogate: 
Creditis Sanctissimam Trinitatem, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
Sanctum, qui sunt tres personae et una divinitas, una natura, una 
virtus, una potestas, unaque vis creatrix; cuius verbo omnes crea- 
turae visibiles et invisibiles ex nihilo fuerunt; coelum et terra et 
quidquid est in coelo et quidquid in terra est, Angeli et homines 
ratione praediti, atque sol et luna et stellae orbis illuminatrices, atque 
animalia terrestria et aérea et aquatilia, omneque vegetabile, et 
plantae, et ea, quae non moventur, et ea, quae moventur; ita ut 
nulla reperiatur subsistens creatura incorporea vel corporea, quae 
non sit veri Dei creatura ?— Creditis incarnationem Christi, qui, una 
e tribus personis, filius Dei, voluit, Patris ac Spiritus Sancti con- 
sensione, filius hominis fieri, nascens ex Maria semper Virgine propter 
hominum salutem; qui et baptizatus fuit a Iohanne in Jordane, 
atque a Patre et Spiritu fuit testatus; tentatus fuit a diabolo ac 
tentatorem vicit; insectatus est daemones. 

Et quum susceperint, atque confessi fuerint verae Christianorum 
fidei professionem, quam scripsimus, perducite illos in Ecclesiam; 
et qui ex illis baptizati non fuerint, inter catechumenos collocate; 
adultos quidem confiteri facite, eisque parum quid poenitentiae 
imponite, et post aliquod temporis baptizate; infantes autem et pueros 
illico baptizate. Ab iis vero, qui prius fuerint baptizati, Confessionem 
sacramentalem excipite, eisque poenitentiam imponite, atque sancto 
Chrismate eorum frontem omnesque sensus signate dicentes: In 
nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; ac tandem inter Christi 
gregem eos commiscete. 

Atque insuper nomen etiam, quod a suis maioribus obtinuerunt, 
ut Solis-Fili< vocarentur, ex hoc nunc mutent, atque in nomine 
Christi magno et mirifico Chr¢s¢téanz nuncupentur: quod sane nomen 
Antiochiae sancti quoque Apostoli Christifidelibus imposuerunt. 


160 


APPENDS Na 


The Provencal Ritual of the Albigeois translated from the Codex 
of Lyon, as printed in facsimile by Cledat, with annotations. 


IN the Lyon Codex the following Latin prayers precede the 
ritual :— 


Benedicite parcite nobis. Amen. Fiat nobis secundum verbum 
tuum}. Pater et filius et espiritus sanctus parcat vobis omnia peccata 
vestra. Adhoremus patrem et filium et espiritum sanctum. iii vegadas 
(i.e. three times). 


There follows the Pater noster with panem supersubstancialem 
substituted for panem quotidianum. 


Then, Quoniam tuum est regnum et virtus et gloria in secula. 
Amen. 

Adhoremus patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum. iii vegadas. 

Gratia domini nostri Ihesu Christi sit cum omnibus vobis. 

Benedicite parcite nobis. Amen. Fiat nobis secundum verbum 
tuum. Pater et filius et spiritus sanctus parcat vobis omnia peccata 
vestra ”. 


There follows in Latin St. John i. 1-17. 
[SERVITIUM] ὃ 


We are come before God and before you, and before the ordinance 
of the holy church‘, to receive service and pardon and penitence for 
all our sins, which we have done, or said, or thought, or worked from 
our birth until now; and we ask mercy of God and of you’, that you 
should pray for us to the holy Father of mercy that he pardon us. 


1 Probably the whole congregation of credentes and ferfecti repeated as far 
as fm ; then the elder responded with the blessing : Pater, &c. 

2 In the course of ritual, these Latin prayers are indicated under the titles 
parcias, gratia, adoremus. 

51 add the title in brackets, because this part of the ritual is so called 
just below in the text. 

* Cp. £br. 70: ‘ Dicunt quod bonus homo aut bona foemina aut congregatio 
utriusque Ecclesia est.’ τό. Sent. 348 : ‘Quod ecclesia Dei non erat in lignis 
et lapidibus, sed in bonis hominibus et Sanctis quales dicebant se ipsos; item 
quod ipsi solum modo et non alii poterant absolvere a peccatis et solvere animos.” 
Disput. inter Cathol. et Patarinum (in Martene, Thes. Nov. Anecd. v.) 1752: 
‘Nostra est Ecclesia ubi sunt homines iusti et casti, non mentientes, non 
fraudantes.’ This note, with most which follow, is from Cunitz, Beetr. 2. Theol. 
Wiss., Jena, 1851. 

5 ice. of the ferfecti, who, being pure, were mediators between God on the 
one hand and sinners, or credendées, on the other. 


APPENDIX VI I61 


Let us adore God and declare all our sins and our many grave 
offences in the eye of the Father, and of the Son, and of the revered 
Holy Spirit, and of the revered holy Gospels! and of the revered holy 
apostles, by prayer and by faith, and by the salvation of all loyal, 
glorious Christians, and of blessed ancestors fallen asleep, and of the 
brethren here present, and before you, holy Jord (oy sir), unto the end 
that you pardon all our sins. Benedicite parcite nobis. 

For many are our sins in which we offend every day, by night and 
day, in word and deed, and in the way of thought, voluntarily and 
involuntarily”, and mostly through our will, which the malign spirits 
bring up before us in the flesh which is our vesture. Benedicite 
parcite nobis. 

But although the holy word of God teaches us, and also the holy 
apostles, and though our spiritual brethren warn us to put away all 
desires of the flesh and all impurity, and to do the will of God, the 
perfect good and complete; yet we, neglectful servants, not only do 
not do the will of God accordingly as it were meet, but we more often 
fulfil the desires of the flesh and worldly cares’, so that we do harm to 
our spirits. Benedicite parcite nobis. 

We walk with the worldly, with them we are familiar and talk and 
eat*; and in many things we offend, so that we do harm to our 
brethren and to our spirits. Benedicite parcite nobis. 

With our tongues we fall into idle words, into vain parleyings, into 
laughter, mockery, and malice, into detraction® of our brothers and 
sisters, whom we are not worthy to judge, as neither to condemn the 
offences of the brothers and sisters. Among Christians we are sinners. 
Benedicite parcite nobis. 

The service which we have received we have not kept it as we 
ought, neither the fast nor the prayer; we have transgressed our 
days®, our hours we prevaricate. The while we are at holy prayer 
our senses stray after carnal desires, after cares of the world, so that 
at this hour we hardly know what thing to offer to the Father of the 
just. Benedicite parcite nobis. 


? During this general confession, the elder presiding held the Codex of the 
Gospels and of the whole N.T. ade pectus and open, because the sins had been 
committed against them. Rezmer, 1764. Notice what stress is laid on confession 
of sins being publicly made before the church and entire congregation of 
Christians, instead of to a single priest. 

? Involuntary sin was due to the corruption of the will by evil spirits, and 
corresponds to the ‘ original sin’ dwelt on in the Key of Truth. 

3 Notice the insistence on the flesh and on the world as the two great causes 
of sin ; and compare the exordium of the Key. 

* The credentes looked forward to washing away the stain of contact with 
non-believers in their final consolamentum. The perfectz, or already consoled, 
could only mix with non-believers in order to convert them, and for no other 
Teason. 

5 So in The Shepherd of Hermas, καταλαλιά is the typical sin. 

* Therefore the observance of certain days and hours was part of the 
‘customs’ of the Cathar Church, as it was of the Paulicians. Cp. the Ay, ch. vi. 


Q 


162 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


O thou, holy and good lord (oy sir), all those things which happen 
unto us, to our senses and our thought, to thee we declare them, holy 
Lord, and all the multitude of our sins do we lay at the mercy of God, 
and in holy prayer, and in the holy Gospel. For many are our sins. 
Benedicite parcite nobis. 

O Lord, judge and condemn the vices of the flesh; have no mercy 
on the flesh born of corruption’; but have mercy on the spirit placed 
in prison’, and arrange for us days and hours and veniae*, and fasts 
and prayings and preachings, as is the custom of good Christians ; 
that we be not judged or condemned at the day of judgement with the 
felons. Benedicite parcite nobis. 


[CEREMONY OF THE RECEPTION, BY A BELIEVER, OF THE 
LORD’S PRAYER. | 


If a believer is in abstinence* and the Christians are agreed to 
deliver unto him the prayer®, they shall wash their hands, and the 
believers ὅ, if there be any present, shall do likewise. And then the one? 
of the good men’, he that is next after the elder’, shall make three 


1 The view of the flesh here implied is that which we find in Paul and in 
the early Church generally, though the Cathars were specially blamed by the 
orthodox for holding it. Among the Cathars, as in the orthodox Church, it 
seems to have led to abstention from wedlock, at least on the part of some. 

* « Adae spiritum, qui erat caelestis angelus, Lucifer apprehendit et in corpore 
carnes velut in carcere reclusit.’ A/oneta, 110. Zdem, 288: ‘ Deus infundit animas 
corrupto vasi.’ 

* Ventas is, in Ducange, explained as ‘inclinationes vel genuflexiones religio- 
sorum quae Graecis μετάνοιαι uocantur, quod ut plurimum in poenitentiam 
iniungi solerent.’ The Middle Ages attached much importance to such pros- 
trations, and so still do Oriental Christians. In the Key there is frequent 
express reference to the use of such prostrations during divine offices. 

* The use of flesh was forbidden to the Zerfectz. They might only eat fish 
and vegetables. Aezmer, 1761: ‘Credunt quod comedere carnes et ova vel 
caseum etiam in urgenti necessitate sit peccatum mortale et hoc ideo quia 
nascuntur ex coitue The credentes, of course, were less strict. ‘There seem to 
have been two classes of cvedentes, those who had conformed to the necessary 
abstinentia and were ripe for reception through the consolamenium into the 
ordo of perfectz, and those who merely believed and had received instruction in 
the faith, i.e. pure catechumens. The latter, according to Cunitz, had already 
received the ‘ prayer’ in the manner here set forth, and are defined as ‘ believers 
to whom has been delivered the prayer.’ The lower grade of cvedentes are 
called by Evervinus ‘ hearers,’ audz/oves, i.e. catechumens. 

5 Similarly, in the early Church, the use of the prayer ‘ Our Father’ was only 
conceded at baptism, and catechumens might not repeat it. 

δ The believer has been instructed in the faith, but is not yet a Christian. 
The abstinence is the trial of him preliminary to his reception. 

7 The MS. has Za. 7. Cunitz tr. ‘ the first.’ 

* The Cathari called themselves the doz homines,‘ bos homes,’ in MS. : dont 
Christiant and amict det were other appellations which they assumed. See 
Lib. Sent. 128. 

ἡ The Elder was one of the Perfect appointed to pray and preach. Early 
inquisitional reports of the first half of the thirteenth century (e. g. Vazssette, 
437; Reiner, 1766; Moneta, 27%) state that the Cathari had a hierarchy of 
Bishop, Elder, and Deacon, but also that the lowest grade of Deacon could 
replace the Bishop in all functions. Vazsse/te, 437, speaks of a maior ecclesiae, 


APPENDIX VI 163 


reverences to the elder ; and then he shall get ready a table ; and then 
three other [reverences], and then let him lay on the table a napkin ; 
and then three more reverences, and let him place the book upon the 
table. And then let him say: ‘ Benedicite parcite nobis. And then 
shall the believer perform his melioramentum', and take the book 
from the hand of the elder. And the elder shall admonish him and 
exhort him, using the proper testimonies”. And if the believer hath 
the name Peter, he shall say as follows :— 


Peter, you should understand that when you are before the Church 
of God, you are before the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For 
the Church signifies reunion; and wherever are the true Christians 
there are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the divine 
scriptures declare. For Christ hath said in the Gospel of St. 
Matthew: ‘ Wheresover two or three persons shall be met together 
in my name, I am there in the midst of them.” And in the Gospel 
of St. John he saith: ‘If any one love me, he will keep my word, and 
my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and we will dwell 
with him.’ And St. Paul saith in the second Epistle to the Corin- 
thians: ‘Ye are the temple of the living God, even as God said 
through Isaiah, For I will dwell in them, and I will go and I will be 
their God, and they shall be my people. For the which cause ye shall 
go out from the midst of them and shall depart, saith the Lord. And 
ye shall not touch unclean things, and I will receive you. And I will 
be to you asa father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, 
saith the Lord Almighty.’ And in another place he saith: ‘ Examine 
ye the proof of Christ which speaketh in me.’ And in the first 
Epistle to Timothy he says: ‘ These things I have written to thee, 
hoping to come unto thee soon. But if I am late, thou shalt know 
how thou shalt converse in the house of God, the which is the church 
of the living God, column and stay of truth... And the same says to 
the Hebrews: ‘ But Christ is like a son in his house, which house we 
are.” For that the spirit of God may be with the faithful of Jesus 
Christ, as Christ showeth in the Gospel of St. John: ‘If ye love me, 
keep my commandments; and I will pray the Father, and he will give 
you another comforter, who shall be with you for everlasting, the spirit 
of truth which the world cannot receive ; for it neither seeth nor 
knoweth him, but ye will know him; for he will dwell with you and 
shall be with you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.’ 
And in the Gospel of Matthew he says: ‘ Behold Iam with you always 
(1. every day) unto the end of the world.’ And St. Paul says in the 
first Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘ Know ye not that ye are the temple 
of the living God and that the spirit of God is in you? But if any one 
shall corrupt the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple 


and in the 722. Sent. we hear of a maior hereticus (13), and of a Dzaconus 
maior (14). In the fourteenth century reports of the inquisition, we only hear 
of an ancia or sentor. Cunitz supposes that stress of persecution had then 
simplified the hierarchy. 

1Clédat understands by melioramentum, ‘an act of contrition.’ It was 
probably recited kneeling. 

* The preaching and use of the New Testament in exhortation and in 
controversy was a special feature of the Cathars. Cp. Lib. Set. 193: “ Pluries 
audivit verba et admonitiones et praedicationem dicti heretici de nocte et audivit 
eum loquentem de evangeliis et epistolis.’ 


Q 2 


Matt. xviii. 
20. 


John xiv. 23. 


2 Cor. vi. 16- 
18. 


2 Cor. xiii. 3. 


r Tim. iil. 14, 
ἘΝῚ 

Heb. iii. 6. 
John xiv. 15- 
18, 


Matt. xxviii. 
20. 
t Cor. iii. τό, 
17. 


Matt. x. 20. 


1 John iv. 13. 
Gal. iv. 6. 


Matt. vi. 15. 


164 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


of God is holy, the which ye are.’ Even so doth Christ show in the 
Gospel of St. Matthew: ‘For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of 
your Father that speaketh in you.’ And St. John says in his epistle : 
‘ Thereby we know that we live in him and he in us, for of his spirit 
he hath given unto us.’ And St. Paul says to the Galatians : ‘ Because 
ye are sons of God, God hath sent the spirit of his son into your heart, 
crying: Father, Father.’ By which you are to understand that your 
presentation which ye make before the sons of Jesus Christ confirms 
the faith and the preaching of the Church of God, according as the 
divine scriptures give us tounderstand. For the people of God parted 
itself of old time from its Lord God; and it parted itself from the 
counsel and will of its holy Father through deception by and submis- 
sion to the malign spirits. And for these reasons and for many others 
it is given us to understand that the holy Father desires to have mercy 
on his people and to receive them into peace and into his concord, by 
the advent of his son Jesus Christ, of which this is! the occasion. 
For ye are here in presence of the disciples of Jesus Christ, in a place 
where there dwelleth in spirit the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Spirit, as here below is shown ; that you may receive that holy prayer, 
which the Lord Jesus Christ gave unto his disciples, to the end that 
your prayers and oraisons may be hearkened unto by our Holy 
Father. For which cause ye must understand if ye would receive 
that holy prayer, that ye must repent of all your sins and pardon all 
men. For our Lord Jesus Christ said: ‘If ye pardon not men their 
sins, neither will your heavenly Father pardon your sins.’ Further- 
more it behoves you to purpose in your hearts to keep that holy prayer 
all through your lifetime, if God shall give you grace to receive it, 
according to the custom of the Church of God, with chastity and with 
truth, and with all the other goodly virtues which God shall vouchsafe 
unto you. 

For which cause we pray the good Lord, who gave to the disciples 
of Jesus Christ virtue to receive that holy prayer in strength, to give 
you also grace to receive it, with strength and with reverence for him 
and for your salvation. Parcite nobis. 


And then shall the elder repeat the prayer, and the believer shall 
follow it. And then shall the elder say :— 


This holy prayer we deliver unto you, that you may receive it from 
God, and from us, and from the Church; and that ye may have power 
to say it all the time of your life, by day and by night, alone and in 
company, and that you may never eat or drink without first saying 
this prayer. And if ye omit to do so, then it shall be incumbent on 
you to bear penance for the same. And he must say: ‘I receive it 
from God, and from you, and from the Church.’ 


And after that he shall make his sediovamentum and give thanks ; 
and then the Christians shall perform a ‘ double’ with vewzae, and the 
believer after them. 


1 Perhaps the meaning is ‘of which advent this (i.e. mercy and peace) was 
the aim and reason.’ 


APPENDIX VI 165 


[RITUAL OF CONSOLAMENTUM.] 


And! if he needeth to be consoled without delay, let him perform his 
meltoramentum, and take the book from the hand of the elder. And 
the elder shall admonish him and exhort him with suitable testimonies, 
and with such words as befit a comsolamentum. And he shall say as 
follows :— 


Peter, ye would fain receive the spiritual baptism, by which is 
given the Holy Spirit in the Church of God, with the holy prayer, with 
the imposition of the hands of the ‘good men.’ Of this baptism our 
Lord Jesus Christ saith in the Gospel of St. Matthew to his disciples : 
‘Go ye and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Matt. xxviii. 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And teach them to *7*° 
keep all things which I have commanded you. And behold, I am with ad 
you always even unto the end of the world.’ And in the Gospel of 
St. Mark he saith: ‘Go ye into all the world, preach the Gospel to Mark xvi. 15. 
every creature. And whoever shall believe and shall be baptized shall 
be saved, but whoever shall not believe shall be condemned.’ And in 
the Gospel of St. John he saith to Nicodemus: ‘ Verily, verily, I say to John iii. 5. 
thee that no one shall enter the kingdom of God unless he be reborn 
of water and of the Holy Spirit.’ And John the Baptist spoke of this 
baptism when he said: ‘ Of a truth I baptize with water, but he that John i. 26, 27. 
cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoe-string I am not worthy Matt 11. 
to tie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire’ And 
Jesus Christ saith, in the Acts of the Apostles : ‘ For of a truth John Acts i. 5. 
baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit’ 
This holy baptism by the imposition of hands was instituted by 
Jesus Christ, according to that which St. Luke relates; and he saith 
that his friends wrought it even as St. Mark relates: ‘On the sick Mark xvi. 18. 
they shall lay their hands, and they shall be well.’ And Ananias Acts ix. 17, 
performed this baptism on St. Paul when he was converted, and after- 18. 
wards Paul and Barnabas performed it in many places. And St. Peter 
and St. John performed it on the Samaritans. For so does St. Luke 
say, in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘When the Apostles who were in Acts viii. τας 
Jerusalem heard this, that Samaria received the word of God, they sent ae 
to them Peter and John. And they, when they were come, prayed for 
them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet it was not 
come upon any one of them. Then they laid their hands upon them 
and they received the Holy Spirit.’ This holy baptism by which the 
Holy Spirit is given, the Church of God hath kept? it from the Apostles 
until now, and it hath passed from ‘ good men’ to ‘good men ’ until 
the present, and will continue to do so until the end of the world. 


1 The Ritual here given is of the consolamentum, which the believer could, 
if he liked, receive immediately after the last step, i.e. Reception of the Prayer. 
The ritual given is for such a consolamentum immediately following, and the 
book is still supposed to be lying on the white cloth, for its production afresh 
is not prescribed; therefore it was already there. 

2 Evervini Epist.ad Bernardum (in Mabillon, Analecta, iii. p. 454) :‘Dicunt 
apud se tantum Ecclesiam esse, et quod ipsi soli vestigiis Christi inhaereant et 
apostolicae vitae veri sectatores permaneant.’ And in explanation of the word 
‘baptism ’ here used in the text, cp. ibid. p. 455: ‘quemlibet sic (per imposi- 
tionem manuum) baptizatum dicunt Z/ectwm, et habere potestatem alios, qui 


John xx. 21- 
23. 


Matt. xvi. 18, 
19. 


Matt. xviii. 


18-20. 


Matt. x. 8. 


John xiv. 12. 


Mark xvi. 17, 
18. 


Luke x. 19. 


ι John ii. r5- 
17. 


166 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


And ye must understand that power is given to the Church of God 
to loose and bind, and to pardon sins and to retain them, as Christ 
saith in the Gospel of St. John: ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so 
send I you. When he had said these things he blew and said to 
them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Those whose sins ye forgive, they 
are pardoned them ; and those of whom ye shall retain them, they are 
retained.’ And in the Gospel of St. Matthew, he said to Simon Peter: 
‘I say unto thee that thou art Simon Peter, and on this rock I will 
build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not have strength against 
it. And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And 
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and 
whatsoever thou shalt unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven.’ 
And in another place he said to his disciples: ‘ Verily I say unto you, 
that whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what- 
soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again, 
truly I say unto you: If two of you agree upon earth, everything 
which they ask shall be done for them by my Father, who is in 
heaven. For where there are two or three persons gathered together 
in my name, I am there in the midst of them.’ And in another place 
he said: ‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out 
devils.’ And in the Gospel of St. John he says: ‘He that believeth 
in me will do the works which I do.’ And in the Gospel of St. Mark 
he says: ‘But those who shall believe, these signs shall follow them. 
In my name they shall cast out demons, and shall speak with new 
tongues, and shall take away serpents; and if they drink anything 
mortal it shall not hurt them. On the sick they shall lay their 
hands and they shall be well’ And in the Gospel of St. Luke he 
says: ‘ Behold I have given you power to tread under foot serpents 
and scorpions and all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall 
harm you.’ 

And if ye would receive this power or this potency, ye must needs 
keep all the commandments of Christ and of the New Testament 
according as ye can. And know that he has commanded that a man 
should not commit adultery nor homicide, nor lie, nor swear any oath, 
nor pick nor steal, nor do unto another that which he would not have 
done unto himself; and that a man should pardon him that doeth him 
wrong, and that a man love his enemies, and that a man pray for and 
bless his calumniators and accusers, and that to him who smites him on 
one cheek he shall offer the other, and to him who takes away his tunic 
he shall also leave his mantle ; and that one judge not nor condemn, 
along with many other commandments which are laid by the Lord 
upon his Church. And equally must you hate this world and its works 
and the things which are of it. For St. John says in his Epistle: ‘O 
much loved ones, will not to love the world nor any things which are in 
the world. If any one love the world, the charity of the Father is not 
in him. For whatsoever is in the world is coveted of the flesh and 


digni fuerint baptizandi, et in mensa sua corpus Christi et sanguinem conse- 
crandi. Prius enim per manus impositionem de numero eorum, quos auditores 
vocant, recipiunt inter credentes, et sic licebit eum interesse orationibus eorum, 
usque dum satis probatum eum faciunt Z/ectum.’ Cp. also Epistola Eccles. 
Leodiensis ad Lucium Papam II (Martene et Dur. amfliss. collect. i. 776): 
‘Haeresis haec diversis distincta est gradibus; habet enim azdtores, qui ad 
errores initiantur, habet cvedentes, qui iam decepti sunt, habet Christzanos suos, 
habet sacerdotes, habet et caeteros praelatos, sicut et nos.’ 


APPENDIX VI 167 


coveted of the eyes, and is pride of life, the which is not of the Father, 

but is of the world. The world will pass away, and the coveting of it, 

but he that doth the will of God shall be everlasting.’ And Christ 

said to the Gentiles : ‘The world cannot hate you, but myself it hates, John vii. 7. 
because I bear witness of it that its works are evil.’ And in the book 

of Solomon it is written: ‘I have seen all things that are done under Eccl. i. 14. 
the sun, and behold all are vanity and tormenting of spirit.’ And 

Judas James said, instructing us in his epistle: ‘Hate ye this soiled Jude 23. 
garment which is the flesh.’ And by these testimonies and by many 

others it behoves you to keep the commandment of God and to hate 

this world. And if ye do it well unto the end, we have hope that your 

soul will have eternal life. 

And he shall likewise say: ‘I have this will and determination. 
Pray God for me that he give me his strength.’ And then let the one 
of the ‘good men’ make his me/toramentum with the believer unto the 
elder, and say: ‘Parcite nobis. Good Christians, we pray you for 
the love of God that ye give of that good which God has given you to 
this our friend.’ And then let the believer perform his se/éoramentum 
and say : ‘ Parcite nobis. For all the sins which I have done, in word 
or thought or deed, I come for pardon to God, and to the Church, and 
to you 411. And the Christians shall say : ‘ By God and by us and by 
the Church may they be pardoned thee; and we pray God that he 
pardon you them.’ And then shall they console him, and the elder 
shall take the book! and place it on his head, and the other good 
men each [place] their right hand [on his head]; and they shall say 
the farcias and three adoremus, and then ‘Pater Sancte, suscipe 
servum tuum in tua iustitia et mitte gratiam tuam et Spiritum Sanc- 
tum tuum supereum.’ And let them pray to God with the prayer, and 
he that guides the ministration must say in low tone the ‘sixtene’; 
and when the‘ sixtene’ has been repeated, he must say three adoremus, 
and the prayer once out loud, and then the Gospel®. And when the 
Gospel has been said they must say three adorvemus, and the ‘ gratia’ 
and the ‘ parcias.’ And then they must perform ‘the peace *’ one with 
the other and with the book. And if there be believers present they 
shall also perform ‘the peace’; and let the believers, if there be any, 
perform ‘the peace’ with the book and with one another. And then 
let them pray to God with ‘a double’ and with vendzae, and they will 
have delivered [unto him the prayer]. 


The commission to hold a ‘double’ and to say the prayer shall not 
be held by a secular person. 

If the Christians enter a place of danger, they shall pray God with 
a ‘gratia.’ If any one goes on horseback, let him hold a ‘ double.’ 
And he shall say the prayer in entering a ship or a town, or in passing 
over a plank or over a hazardous bridge. And if they find any one 
with whom they must speak the while they pray to God, and if they 


1 Moneta, 278: ‘Praelatus maior textum Evangelii super caput eius imponit, 
et alii fratres qui ibi sunt manum dextram capiti vel humeris eius imponunt.’ 

2 Tbid.: ‘Praelatus vero, qui librum tenet ... ait, In nomine Patris et 
Filii et Spiritus Sancti, et septies dicta oratione Dominica, tandem Evan- 
gelium Iohannis, quod in die natalis Domini cantatur, dicit: In principio erat 
Verbum. His ita celebratis credunt illi omnia peccata dimitti et gratiam Spiritus 
Sancti ei infundi.’ 

® ie. kiss. 


168 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


have [? said] eight prayers these can be taken for a ‘simple.’ And if 
they have sixteen prayers, they can be taken for a ‘double.’ And 
if they find any property on the road, they shall not touch it unless 
they know that they can return it. And if they see at once that people 
have passed in front of them to whom it might be returned, they shall 
take and return it if they can. And if they cannot, they shall put it 
back where they found it. And if they find beast or bird taken they 
shall not trouble themselves. And if a Christian would drink during 
the day time, let him have prayed to God twice or more times after 
eating. And if after the ‘double’ of the night they drink, let them do 
another ‘double.’ And if there are believers, let them stand upright 
when they say the prayer before drink. And if a Christian pray to 
God with Christian women, let him always guide the prayer. And if 
a believer to whom the prayer had been delivered was with the 
Christian women, let him go apart and go through it by himself. 


If the Christians to whom the service of the Church is entrusted 
receive a message from a believer who is sick, they must go to him 
and must ask him privily how he has behaved towards the Church 
since he received the faith, and whether he is in aught indebted to the 
Church or has harmed it. And if he owes aught, and can pay it, he 
shall do so. And if he will not do so, he is not to be received. For 
if one prays God for a man who is unjust or disloyal, such prayer 
cannot avail. At the same time, if he cannot pray, he is not to be 
rejected. 

And the Christians must show him the abstinence and the customs 
of the Church. And then they must ask him, in case he be received, 
if he has the mind to keep them. And he must not promise, if he be 
not firmly resolved to do so. For St. John says that the part of liars 
will be in a lake of fire and sulphur. And if he says that he feels him- 
self strong enough to suffer all this abstinence, and if the Christians 
are agreed to receive him, they shall lay upon him abstinence in such 
wise as to ask him if he is minded to keep himself from lying and 
swearing, and from all else forbidden by God, and to keep the customs 
of the Church and commandments of God, and to keep his heart and 
his property, such as he has them now or shall have in the future, at 
the beck and call of God and of the Church, and at the service of 
Christian men and women, for ever henceforth so far as he can. And 
if he answer ‘ Yes,’ they shall reply: ‘This abstinence do we lay upon 
you for you to receive it from God and from us and from the Church, 
and to keep it so long as you live; for if you keep it well, along with 
the others which you have to discharge, we have hope that your soul 
will have life.’ And he shall answer : ‘I receive it of God, and of you, 
and of the Church.’ 

And then shall they ask him if he wishes to receive the prayer, and 
if he says ‘ Yes,’ they shall dress him in a shirt and breeches, if it can 


APPENDIX VI 169 


be done, and they shall arrange to hold him sitting up, if he can raise 
his hands. And they shall lay a napkin or another cloth before him 
on the bed. And on this cloth they shall set the book, and shall say 
once Benedicite, and three times ‘Adoremus Patrem et Filium et 
Spiritum Sanctum.’ And he must take the book from the hand of the 
elder. And then, if he can wait, he that conducts the service shall 
admonish him and preach to him from suitable testimonies. And 
then he shall ask him with regard to the covenant, if he has it in his 
heart to guard and keep it according as he has covenanted. And if 
he says ‘ Yes,’ they shall make him confirm the same. And then they 
must pass unto him the prayer, and he shall follow it. And then let 
the elder say to him: ‘ This is the prayer which Jesus Christ brought 
into this world, and he taught it to the “good men.”” And never shall 
ye eat or drink anything without first saying this prayer. And if ye 
are remiss therein, then ye must need do penitence for the same.’ He 
shall say : ‘I receive it from God, and from you, and from the Church.’ 
And then let them salute him like a woman. And then they must 
pray God with a ‘ double’ and with venzae, and then they must relay 
the book before him. And then he must say three times, ‘ Adoremus 
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum.’ And then let him take the 
book from the hand of the elder, and the elder must admonish him 
with testimonies and with such words as befit the consolamentum. 
And then the elder must ask him if he has it in his heart to keep 
and guard the covenant as he has covenanted to, and he shall cause 
him to confirm it. 


And then the elder must take the book, and the sick man must bow 
his head and say: ‘ Parcite nobis. For all my sins of deed or word or 
thought, I ask pardon of God, and of the Church, and of you all.’ And 
the Christians must say: ‘ By God and by us and by the Church may 
they be pardoned thee, and we pray God to pardon thee.’ And then 
they must console him by laying their hands and the book on his 
head, and say: ‘ Benedicite, parcite nobis. Amen. Fiat nobis secun- 
dum verbum tuum, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus parcat vobis 
omnia peccata vestra. Adoremus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanc- 
tum’ three times, and then, ‘ Pater Sancte, suscipe servum tuum in 
tua iustitia, et mitte gratiam tuam et Spiritum Sanctum tuum super 
eum.’ 


And if it be a woman, they shall say : ‘ Pater sancte, suscipe ancil- 
lam tuam in tua iustitia, et mitte gratiam tuam et Spiritum Sanctum 
tuum super eam.’ 


And then let them pray to God with the prayer, and they must say 
in low voice the ‘sixtene” And when the ‘sixtene’ has been said, 
they must say three times: ‘ Adoremus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
Sanctum,’ and the prayer once out loud, and then the Gospel. And 
when the Gospel is said they must say three times: ‘Adoremus 
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum,’ and the prayer once out 


I70 THE KEY OF ΠΕ 


loud. And then let them salute her like a man. And then they 
must perform the peace among ‘themselves and with the book. And 
if there be believers, male or female, present, let them perform the ᾿ 
peace. And then the Christians must ask for salvation, and depart. 

And if the sick person die and leave them or give them anything, 
they must not keep it for themselves nor go off with it, but they must 
put it at the disposition of the order. However, if the sick person 
lives, the Christians must present him to the order and pray that he 
console himself afresh as early as he can; and let him do so of his 
own free will. 


FORM OF RECEPTION OF AN ALBIGEOIS CONVERT. 


From WVotices οὐ Extraits des MSS. de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 
Paris, 1890, ‘ Notice sur deux Anciens Manuscrits Frangais,’ par M. P. 
Meyer, p. 76. In a French version made about 1250 of Pierre de 
Vaux-de-Cernai, H7zstotre de la Guerre des Albigeots, the MS. La 
Clayette, p. 616b, has the following :— 


Quant aucuns se rendoit en la foi des hereges, cil qui le recevoit li 
disoit : ‘Amis, se tu veus estre des miens, il covient que tu renoies 
toute la foi de Rome’ ; et il disoit: ‘Je la renoi.’ Lors li disoit li 
hereges : ‘ Recoi le Saint Esperit des bons homes,’ et puis li soffloit 
par deux foiz en la bouche; puis li disoit: ‘Or renoies a la croiz qui li 
prestres te fist el baptesme el piz et es espaules.et el chief de l’oie et du 
creime?’ Et il disoit : ‘Je le renoi.—Croiz tu que cele iave te puisse 
sauver ou tu fus baptisiez?’ Et il disoit: ‘Je ne croi pas.—Or renoie 
au cresmel que li prestres te mist en la teste’; et il disoit: ‘Je le 
renoi.’ En itel maniere retienent li herege li un les autres, et renoient 
tot le sacrement du baptesme: lors li metent tuit la main sur la teste, 
et le baisent et le vestent de robe noire; et dés lors en avant il est ausi 
com uns des autres. 


The corresponding Latin text is as follows :— 


Quando aliquis se reddit haereticis, ille dicit qui recipit eum : ‘Amice, 
si vis esse de nostris, oportet ut renunties toti fidei quam tenet Romana 
ecclesia. Respondet: ‘Abrenuntio.—Ergo accipe Spiritum Sanctum a 
bonis hominibus,’ et tunc aspirat ei septies in ore (Louguet, xix, 6 E). 


171 


APPENDIX VII 


r Ae A Can 2 " a A a , 3 , , 
Tov ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Ισαὰκ τοῦ καθολικοῦ τῆς μεγάλης Appevias λόγος 


στηλιτευτικὸς κατὰ ᾿Αρμενίων. Κεφαλ. Η΄. 
ΔῚ 


ε r \ \ ᾽ , ~ > > > Cn ΄ » κα 
Ο Χριστὸς τριακονταετὴς ἐβαπτίσθη" οὐκ οὖν αὐτοὶ ews τριάκοντα ἐτῶν 
΄ , c \ Ν ’ > 3 , a» ς 
μηδένα βαπτίσωσιν. 6 Χριστὸς βαπτισθεὶς μύρον οὐκ ἐχρίσθη, οὔτε ἡγια- 
σμένον ἔλαιον. οὐκοῦν μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ χρισθῶσι μύρῳ ἢ ἁγίῳ ἐλαίῳ. ὁ Χριστὸς 
! . εὖ XP [PAD ef] aes pe ρ 
> ΄ » τὴ , > > > Ae > > Ἁ >? , 
ev κολυμβήθρᾳ οὐκ ἐβαπτίσθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ποταμῷ μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐν κολυμβήθρᾳ 
΄ “ , “- , 
βαπτίσωσιν. ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως τῶν τιη ἁγίων πατέρων 
a a , 
οὐκ εἶπε μέλλων βαπτισθῆναι" μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογήσωσιν. 6 Χριστὸς μέλλων 
an \ \ > > , ry eh) , a , ‘ 
βαπτισθῆναι πρὸς δυσμὰς οὐκ ἀπεστράφη καὶ ἀπετάξατο τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ 
> , ΡΣ a , \ ? \ > ’ Ν , 
ἐνεφύσησεν avtov’ οὔτε πάλιν πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἐστράφη καὶ συνετάξατο 
τῷ θεῷ" αὐτὸς γὰρ ἦν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός: οὐκοῦν μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ταὐτὸ τοὺς ὑπ᾽ 
Ὁ θεᾷ ς γὰρ ἢ ηθινὸς θεός μη ς ὑπ 
> “ ’ , c ‘ Ν -“ € ~ , 
αὐτῶν βαπτιζομένους ποιήσωσιν. ὁ Χριστὸς βαπτισθεὶς τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ σώματος 
οὐ μετέλαβε: μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ μεταλάβωσιν. ὁ Χριστὸς μετὰ τὸ βαπτισθῆναι 
ἐνήστευσεν ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα καὶ μόνον" καὶ μέχρις pk ἐτῶν ἡ τοιαύτη 
παράδοσις κεκράτηκεν. . . .| ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐγγὺς τοῦ πάσχα, ἡμέρας ν΄. 
ς A Ἁ , con , A eA 2 > , > , 4 
ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ μυστήριον τῆς θυσίας τοῦ ἄρτου ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐ παρέδωκεν 
IAN ἐν οἵ 5 ὶ EC vn καθεζόμενος" οὐκοῦ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐ 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οἴκῳ κοινῷ, καὶ τραπέζᾳ κοινῇ καθεζόμενος" οὐκοῦν μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐν 
> , ε , \ , “a \ \ \ a 
ἐκκλησίαις ἱερουργήσωσι τὴν θυσίαν τοῦ ἄρτου. ὁ Χριστὸς μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι 
\ lel ‘ ‘ τὶ A , n~ 5 , 4 2 e 
kal χορτασθῆναι τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, τότε τοῦ ἰδίου {μετέδωκεν ) σώματος 
οὐκοῦν καὶ αὐτοὶ πρῶτον φαγέτωσαν κρέα, καὶ χορτασθήτωσαν, καὶ τότε κοι- 
, r , c , ’ ‘ ig ‘ c “ 2? fi 9 > A 
νωνήτωσαν τῶν μυστηρίων. 6 Χριστός, εἰ Kal ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐσταυρώθη" ἀλλὰ 
σταυρὸν προσκυνεῖσθαι οὐ διετάξατο, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον οὐκοῦν μηδ᾽ 
> , Das a ΄ a 
αὐτοὶ σταυρὸν προσκυνήτωσαν. 6 σταυρὸς ξύλον ἢν" οὐκοῦν μήτε χρυσοῦν, 
“ A fol Ba , 
μήτε ἀργυροῦν, μήτε σιδηροῦν, ἢ χαλκοῦν, ἢ λιθινὸν σταυρὸν προσκυνήτωσαν. 
΄ , Ν 
ὁ Χριστὸς ὠμοφύριον, καὶ ἐπιτραχήλιον, καὶ στιχάριον, καὶ φελώνιον καὶ μαν- 
, , “ ΄ δὴ 
δίον, οὐ περιεβάλετο" μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ταῦτα περιβαλλέσθωσαν. ὁ Χριστὸς τὰς εὐχὰς 


1 A clause has dropped out, which must have run somehow thus: οὐκοῦν καὶ 
αὐτοὶ μετὰ τὸν βαπτισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα νηστεύσωσιν. 
Perhaps it stood not here, but just before, after καὶ μόνον. The ἡμεῖς of course 
refers to Isaac, for the Paulicians are throughout expressed by αὐτοί. Isaac’s 
reference to Lent shows that it was a church fast, and fot a private one 
following individual baptism, that was inculcated by the Paulicians, 


172 DHE (KEY OF TRUDE 


x , ‘ a“ ent ( 1 ‘ AY ‘ , > a 
τῆς λειτουργίας καὶ τῶν ἁγίων Θεοφανίων καὶ Tas λοιπὰς πάσας εὐχάς, 
A , ‘ ε , a > ᾿, δ J > + ’ , 
παντὸς πράγματος καὶ ἁπάσης ὥρας οὐκ εἴρηκε" μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ ταύτας λεγέτωσαν, 

4 ΄σ > ~ , 
ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων εὐχῶν ἁγιωσθήτωσαν. ὁ Χριστὸς πατριάρχας, καὶ μητρο- 
Ν ’ 
πολίτας, καὶ ἐπισκόπους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους, καὶ διακόνους, καὶ μοναχούς, οὐκ 
΄σ lj 
ἐχειροτόνησεν, οὔτε Tas εὐχὰς αὐτῶν εἴρηκε" μηδὲ αὐτοὶ χειροτονείσθωσαν, 
a - A ~ > ~ > , c A > , > ”~ 6 4 
ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν εὐχῶν εὐλογηθήτωσαν. ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκκλησίας οἰκοδομεῖσθαι, Kat 
, fe “- f - 
ἁγίας τραπέζας κατασκευάσαι, καὶ μύρῳ χρισθῆναι, καὶ μυρίαις εὐχαῖς ἁγιά- 
> ΄ »ὰν p 4 ? > Ν a ΄ ε ‘ 
ζεσθαι ov διετάξατο, οὐδὲ πεποίηκε" μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ τοῦτο ποιησάτωσαν. ὁ Χριστὸς 
, Ν \ > , ἐν J > ‘ , (2 Ox \ 
τετράδα καὶ παρασκευὴν ov νενήστευκε᾽ μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ νηστεύσωσαν. ὁ Χριστὸς 
A \ > A , > ΄ > 2 ‘ ‘ ‘ > \ 
κατὰ Tas ἀνατολὰς προσεύχεσθαι ov διετάξατο, μηδ᾽ αὐτοὶ κατὰ τὰς ἀνατολὰς 
΄΄ - Υ , ΄ 
προσευχέσθωσαν. ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα καὶ πλείονα τούτων Χριστιανῶν μυστη- 
> ΕΣ ΟΣ , 
ρίων ὄντα, Ou’ ὧν ἡμεῖς" ἁγιαζόμεθα, καὶ πιστοὶ γινόμεθα, ὁ Χριστὸς δι 
ig τς > , e 6.5. iA ‘ > “- \ ‘ , 
ἑαυτοῦ οὐ παρέδωκεν, ἅπερ ὁ ἀρνούμενος καὶ ἀθετῶν καὶ μὴ παραδεχόμενος, 
‘ - > , > ’ « ΄“΄ a > ΄ > ~ > , 
Χριστιανὸς καλεῖσθαι ov δύναται. ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς, ἅπερ ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ ἀποστόλων 
‘ , ΄ , an “ 8...» e G ΄ x 
καὶ παναγίων πατέρων παρελάβομεν {ταῦτα Kpatodpev)*, ἐξ ὧν ὑπάρχει καὶ 
« ~ , a , ‘ = A -“ , ? , Ν «ς 
ἡ τοῦ τελείου ἄρτου παράδοσις, καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς λόγχης ἀποκαθαίρεσις, καὶ ἡ 
cal « ’ > , ΄σ΄ 
τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων ποίησίς τε καὶ προσκύνησις. οὐ γὰρ ἐναντιούμενοι τῷ 
- - ~ ΗΠ = , 
Χριστῷ καὶ αὐτῷ μαχόμενοι, καὶ τὰ ἐκείνου ἐλαττοῦντες Kal σμικρύνοντες, 
a ΄ Ἐν 3. \ ε ΄ > > , ΄ δ 3 4 
ταῦτα πάντα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ Tapedwkav’ ἀλλὰ 
. ‘A >? , > , 4 , 4 € “ ν ΄ 
μᾶλλον τὰ ἐκείνου αὐξάνοντες, καὶ μεγαλύνοντες, καὶ ὑψοῦντες, καὶ τιμῶντες, 
‘ ΄ ΄ > a a A ͵ ” \ ΄ 
καὶ δοξάζοντες μυστήρια... οὐκοῦν οἱ τοῦ τελείου ἄρτου τὴν παράδοσιν 
> ~ ‘ > ΄ ‘ a + > , ΄ 
ἀθετοῦσι, καὶ οὐ παραδέχονται, καὶ ἄζυμον ἄρτον εἰς θυσίαν προσφέρειν 
’ - ΄ 
βούλονται, ἀθετήτωσαν καὶ ἀρνήτωσαν ταῦτα πάντα, ἅπερ εἰρήκαμεν, ἅτινα 
ς \ ν᾿ γ΄ a > ΄ SEU ΟΙΘΝΙΝΙΣ, ΑΕ anes \ c) lef 
ὁ Χριστὸς μὲν dc’ ἑαυτοῦ od mapédaxev ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι 
ἊΝ, τ ‘ > ‘ ss! 5 A c -~ ‘ > , oA > 
πατέρες. εἰ yap αὐτοὶ μὲν eis τὴν ἑαυτῶν διατροφὴν ἐσθίειν ἄζυμον ov 
΄ ~ ~ ΄ - > ,’ ’ 
καταδέχονται, πῶς τοῦτο τὸ βδελυκτόν, σῶμα θεοῦ κατασκευάσαι οὐκ αἰσχύνον- 
> . A μή ε 3 - Δ A » [το - > ’ 4 
ται. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἕτερον οἱ ἀσεβεῖς, ἢ τὸ τέλειον τῆς Χριστοῦ ἐνανθρωπήσεως 
΄ ΄ - > 
ἀρνεῖσθαι βουλόμενοι, ταῦτα πάντα φλυαροῦσι καὶ προφασίζονται, ἀλλοτρίους 


‘ ΄ A - ‘ - ἘΣ > ‘ ΄ 
και ξένους του Χριστου Kal τῶν AylWY αὐτοὺς δεικνύοντες. 


Λόγος στηλιτευτικὸς τοῦ ὁσίου Ἰσαάκ, περὶ τῶν κακοδόξων ᾿Αρμενίων καὶ 
αἱρετικῶν (Pp. 395 B). 


Ἔ nO b) Ν > ΄ > ‘ a ΄ cal ‘ 10€ » 
ὑγενήθην yap καὶ ἀνετράφην ev μέσῳ τῶν αἱρετικῶν καὶ ἀθέων, καὶ 


διδαχθεὶς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς διδασκαλίαις αὐτῶν, καὶ σφόδρα ὑβριστὴς καὶ ἀντι- 
χ ; 


1 Notice that it is particularly this feast of which they deprecated the 
celebration. The context forbids us to suppose that it was the old Feast of the 
Baptism of Christ that was objected to. It must rather be the new Christmas 
festival that had supplanted it on the sixth of January, to which the Paulicians 
of the twelfth century objected. 

2 By ‘we’ Isaac signifies himself and his party. 

3. Words so bracketed are those supplied by Combefisius. 

* This touch plainly reveals that the ‘Protestants,’ whose confession Isaac 
has just given above, were Adoptionists. 


APPENDIX VII 173 


, A ~ A ΄ ΄“ ‘ ΗΝ , ’ 
τασσόμενος, καὶ λοιδορῶν τὴν τῶν Χριστιανῶν καὶ ὀρθοδόξων θρησκείαν. 
> A A ΄ ΄- ΄ a 

ANN ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπία, διὰ πρεσβειῶν τῶν ἁγίων, μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος 
΄ pets \ 7 \ > a aA ow, , 4 Η 
πολυτρόπως ἀνήλκυσε τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀθέων πλάνης καὶ πρὸς 
΄ ΄ ΄ ΄ ‘ 
τὸ φῶς τῆς γνώσεως τῆς ἀληθείας προσέφερε. σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ 
A > ‘ ’ ‘ > A ‘ A > , » ? A ‘\ ‘ ; > ~ 
τὴν ἐμὴν ταπείνωσιν, καὶ οὐχὶ διὰ τὸ εἶναί pe ἄξιον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ 
> , τὰ YJ A ~ / a Ν ‘ , 
εὐσπλαγχνίαν, καὶ διάνοιξας Ta τοῦ vods μου ὄμματα καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν. .... 
, 32> , , Ν - ’ ΄“ ’ ΄ A ‘ 
καὶ ἠρξάμην κηρύττειν, καὶ διαλαλεῖν ek τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν, Ta παρὰ 
“- ς a ΄ Ἦ 5 ΄ , εἰ , 5 
τῶν αἱρετικῶν κεκαλυμμένα Kal ἀγνοούμενα δόγματα. ὥστε διελαλήθη τὰ 
Av? ALLY = 5 Rie , ee) \ , a 3 Η 3 , 
περὶ ἐμοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι᾽ καὶ ἣ πρώην ἀγάπη καὶ συμφιλία, ἣν εἶχον πρὸς αὐτούς, 
» ΄ , , 
μετετράπη εἰς ἔχθραν καὶ μῖσος, καὶ εἰς τελείαν μάχην. ὥστε συνεδριά- 
‘ a ‘ , Ἀ , ‘ , A - > , 
σαντες, καὶ ἅπαξ, καὶ δίς, καὶ τρίς, καὶ συμβουλευσάμενοι μετὰ τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων 
> , ‘ , ‘ ~ “ - A - , » 
ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ λαοῦ, τοῦ θανατῶσαί pe. ἔλεγον 
A ’ Ul ΄ 
γάρ, ὅτι ὁ ἐγχειρίσας αὐτὸν καὶ θανατώσας, συγχωρηθήσονται αὐτῷ αἱ ἁμαρ- 
τίαι αὐτοῦ" καὶ τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν. μετὰ δὲ 
- A > , QP ΒΝ, om ‘ » A c “ a > ᾿» 
ταῦτα γραφὰς ἐπιτιμίων καὶ ὀργῆς μεγάλης ἔστειλαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχεις 
= = , xa , 
ἐξουσίαν ὅλως ἱερουργῆσαι, ἐπεὶ ἀπέσχισας σεαυτὸν τῆς ᾿Αρμενίων θρησκείας. 
» 4 ‘ \ - , > 4 ᾿ ἀν a > ΄ ‘ c , 
Ἐγὼ δὲ μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης ἀντέγραψα αὐτοῖς" ὅτι ov povoy τὴν ἱερωσύνην 
ἣν οὐκ εἶχα παραιτοῦμαι ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους καὶ τὴν θρησκείαν ὑμῶν 
βὸ λύ Varo 6 iC ὃ A (τὰ , = > , A in θ “ 
ελύττομαι καὶ ἀναθεματίζω. διὰ τοῦτο προσέφυγα τῇ ἀμωμήτῳ καὶ ἀληθινῇ 
πίστει, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἁγιωτάτην μητρόπολιν ἐνέδραμον. καὶ ἔκτοτε τέρπομαι 
\ , ~ ~ a ‘ / ” EN a ‘ ‘ 
καὶ πάνυ ποθῶ τοῦ στηλιτεῦσαι Kal κατάδηλα ποιῆσαι ἐπὶ πᾶσι, Tas βδελυρὰς 


κ \ Coa ait 
καὶ πολλὰς ὑμῶν αἱρέσεις. 


174 


ΒΕ ΝΞ valent 


PAUL (OR LARON 


THE following extracts are from the Epistle of Paul of Taron 
written against Theopistus, the Roman philosopher. The text used 
is the edition of Constantinople printed in the year of the Armenians 
1201 =A. D. 1752-3. 

Paul died A.D. 1123 in the cloister of St. Lazar in Taron, where 
he had lived. An ardent assailant of the doctrine of two natures in 
Christ, he is held in honour among the Gregorian Armenians ; but 
was condemned in a counter synod convoked by the Catholicos 
Mekhitar, A. Ὁ. 1341-1355. 

Theopistus was a Greek who accepted the council of Chalkedon 
and had written a book against the orthodox Armenians, in which he 
accused them of not keeping the festival of the Birth of Christ in the 
right way, of entertaining the heresy of Eutyches, and so forth. The 
following are the passages in which Paul, his antagonist, attacks 
the Paulicians :— 

p- 259. And this (viz. the text Isa. vi. 3-4), if fully explained, has 
in it a mystery concerning the holy church. Now the ranks of the 
heretics are scandalized at the intimation that the holy church of God 
can be built of stones and clay’. Yet God himself of clay fashioned 
man along with his skin, which has many impurities and evil matters 
fraught with suffering. 

Now, behold, when a man is ill and dies, and after the fourth day 
you raise the tombstone, you will behold the church of the Manicheans 
filled with deadly rottenness. But the stone and the clay is pure, and 
has not in ita corruptible nature. And for-this reason God established 
his church of stones and clay; and named it the house of God, and 
it is indivisible and indissoluble unto eternity. 

Wherefore all the ranks of the holy prophets declared this to be 
before creation (saying, ‘The Lord was pleased with Sion and chose 
to dwell therein’)*. 


p. 260. The Manicheans® read all the Divine Scriptures, yet run 
headlong into gainsaying. So it is that because of their want of faith 
the Prophet said (They have defiled thy holy temple), ‘ whom shall the 
holy indivisible Trinity curse.’ 


1 The reference is to the Thonraki tenet thus given by Nerses (sce p. 155) : 
‘Ecclesia non illa est, quae ab hominibus aedificata est, sed nos tantum.’ 

2 The Armenian text thus gives citations of the Bible in brackets. 

3. Paul means the Paulicians, and not the true Manicheans whom he describes 
lower down. 


APPENDIX VIII 175 


And it was not right for us to write at length, nor mention the 
Thondraketzi. Inasmuch as a kind which has not the witness to the 
faith, nor its foundation, nor God, hath no need of cross or of church. 

But unto us who have faith was given the mystery of the holy cross 
and of the God-receiving temple of God ; and we have raised aloft the 
saving tree of the cross of Christ. And as the Godhead is inseparable 
from the flesh, so is the power of Christ inseparable from the holy 
cross. For where the cross is, there is the crucified one So then he 
was raised aloft [on it] in the flesh, but in his power was united with it. 

It is not right at all to converse with them or to share with them 
in the bread!; according to the Lord’s word which says (beware of 
the leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees). And (He shall hate the 
impious and love Thy laws). 

And again they deny the sacrifice of Christ, and do not allow it to 
be offered for those who believed in Christ and have fallen asleep”. 
They say that for the sinner no sacrifice avails, but only for the just. 

But if this be so, then the suffering of the cross was nothing unto us. 
Consequently by his death we have not been freed from the bonds 
of death, and Satan has not been destroyed, nor hell despoiled. Nor 
has Christ become king over us. We are still the heritage and portion 
of devils’. = 5. 


p. 262. The Thondraketzi then in their evil gainsaying declare that 
the sacrifice or mata/ is of no avail to the dead. And so we have 
found them to be on a level with these heretics, who oppose the sacrifice 
of Christ which is fulfilled because of sin. 

A certain Apellas*, a filthy man and grown old in the flesh, soured by 
length of days and puffed up by devils, said concerning the Prophets, 
that they were opposed to the Holy Spirit; and he laid down this in 
writing, that the sacrifice which they offer for the dead is of no avail, 
whom shall God curse. The filthy Celestinus, who does not admit the 
birth and sufferings of God, but of the mere man alone. 


p. 263. The Marcionites who do not admit the resurrection of the 
dead, and deny the holy sacrifice to be aught, and say that the God- 
receiving holy cross is mere wood, and have been blinded by the 
power hidden therein, just like these Thondraketzi. Proteron despised 
and insulted the holy cross of Christ, and said that he was in his own 
person the church; and like the Thondraketzi declared cross and 
church to be alien to the Godhead, nor permitted the sacrifice to be 
offered for those who slept in Christ. And when they baptize, he said 
‘There is no Holy Spirit’ And he himself was uxorious and obscene 
in his life. A certain Eranios, who consorted with the Arians. For 
no one ordained him a bishop‘, yet he organized much opposition to 
the holy church; and said ‘It is not right to offer sacrifices for those 
who sleep.’ Nor did he permit fasting on the fourth of the week and 


1 That is, the Sacrament. 

2 Compare the account of Aristaces above, p.134. The Early British Church 
agreed with the Paulicians, for in the De Synodo Patriciz, A.D. 450 (Hardouin, 
1. 1, 1794), we read: ‘ Qui enim in uita sua non merebitur sacrificium accipere, 
quomodo post mortem illi poterit adiuuare?’ 

3 Perhaps Apelles, the successor of Marcion, is referred to. 

* Paul glances at Smbat the heresiarch. Perhaps in this Eranius we should 
recognize the Iron or Irion who, in the days of Justinian, invented a calendar 
for which he was anathematized. See the Homily of Ananias of Shirak on 
Easter in Byz. Zeitschr., vol. vi, August, 1897, pp. 579 foll. 


176 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


on Friday’, and he prevented the observance of Easter*. And he said 
that the bishop has no more honour than the priest®. And he ordered 
women to perform baptism and to mount the Bema*. Elkeson said 
that ‘The dead are not helped by sacrifices nor by the compassion 
and prayers of the living tendered in their behalf.’ And such is the 
vile heresy, with which they have filled the holy church of God, 
blaspheming the increatedness® and opposing the mystery of the 
economy of the Son of God [ordained] according to the goodly pity 
of Christ our God, which he wrought unto his faithful ones by his 
blood. 

Such as these are those who agree with and witness to the Thon- 
draketzi, and not to the orthodox. The Manicheans and Sadducees, 
having a single heresy, the former deny the resurrection of the dead‘, 
the latter the salutary holy sacrifice. They’ have been taught the lore 
and have lost what cannot be found. And the Sadducees®* have lost 
it without lore and letters, they who now are called worshippers of the 
Sun. These do not admit the resurrection of the dead, and are true 
worshippers of Satan. They believe not in the Holy Scriptures, nor 
accept them; and they say that He who died, underwent corruption 
and perished. 

They liken this life to herbs and to trees, and say that [it is] as the 
herb, which when destroyed does not come to life again, whereas its 
root does so come to life. 

There is no end to their discourses, but we eschew length. 

By the will of the merciful God, we speak not thus, but as we learned 
from the holy commands of God, as the Prophet called aloud saying 
(The dead shall arise and all shall be quickened who have been laid 
inthetomb. They shall all awake and rejoice who rest in the earth).... 


p. 265. Therefore it is right and meet to offer sacrifice for all who 
have believed in Christ ..... It is a true saying, brethren, that 
where Christ is, there are all the heavenly hosts. So then this rite is 
great and wonderful for the dead and for the living. For thus doth 
the church of God believe; that when a man’s spirit is held fast in 
the hopeless Tartarus, and is sealed with ten seals, even a single 
person is able to give a reminder of it before God in order to its 
salvation. But those who perform this rite in purity and prayer, are 


1 This confirms the statement of Isaac Catholicos on p, Ixxx. 

2 This probably means that the Eranios or Irenaeus in question was a quarto- 
decuman. 

5 So in the Azy, p. 105. But orthodox writers were equally blunt, e.g. 
Nerses of Lambron, in his work on the Orders of the Church, Venice, 1847, 
p- 81: ‘These three orders of Archbishop, Bishop, and Priest, though they 
differ in name one from the other, are none the less a single class, and have the 
same authority and honour, namely of standing immediately around God? 

* The Patriarch Chatschik (end of tenth century), in the //éstory of Asolik, 
bk. 3, ch. 21, makes the same charge against the Paulicians, probably confusing 
them with Montanists. 

5 Because the Paulicians regarded Jesus as a creature. 

® The Manicheans denied the resurrection of the body only. 

7 He seems here to mean the Thonraki, whom, like Aristaces, he regards as 
an offshoot, though heretical, of the orthodox Armenian Church. 

8 i.e. the true Manicheans, whose elect ones would not cut a salad for 
themselves from dread of taking life. See Augustine, ¢. Mantchaeum Faustum, 
passim. 


APPENDIX VIII ΤῊ 


able to save those who are held in durance, and can dash to pieces 
the ten bolts of bottommost hell by the divine power, and enable the 
spirits to fly upwards into heaven; if only the deceased has died in 
true faith and in repentance, and not in atheism and blasphemy}. 

And if any one receives these rites from the living, and if the latter 
perform for them the sacrifice, it is truly potent. However, one must 
keep oneself pure and just, and all one’s days not separate oneself from 
the door of the holy Church, ever regarding oneself as one dead ; and 
one must eat of the dominical flesh, nor venture to eat any other flesh 
until one dies. 


The following is from p. 229 of the letter of Paul of Taron :— 


‘Again another also of the Greeks wrote to the Armenians about 
Love to Vahan the Catholicos. It was he that did expound the 
lessons of James, for he was versed in the divine testaments, whose 
name was Theodorus, the Metropolitan of the city of Melitene. 

‘And he confirmed the canons of the holy apostles, and ramparted 
us round with immovable testimonies. And he wrote to the Arme- 
nians thus and said :— 

“ὦ But we with faith accept the decisions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 
in which he confirmed the keeping of the manifestation of the Lord on 
Jan. 6, and rejected their? view with scorn. And on Dec. 25 he 
appointed the feast of David the Prophet and the Commemoration of 
James the Apostle*, and ordered us to celebrate them together.” 

‘ Likewise in the canon of the holy apostles we find it appointed on 
Jan. 64. Wherefore also the blessed Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusa- 
lem, wrote to the Armenians to the effect that: ‘“ We of Jerusalem 
feast on one and the same day the Birth and the Baptism,” as the holy 
Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem handed down to us. So, then, you will 
find this so in the writing of Theodorus, Patriarch of the city of 
Melitene?.’ 


1 Here we have, perhaps, a summary of the teaching contained in the Book 
of Purgatory referred to in the margin of the Catechism (see p. 122). 

* i.e. of those who celebrated the birth on December 25. 

8 Anania of Shirak (see his homily on Christmas translated in Exfosztor, 
Noy., 1896) attests that in the ‘Lections’ of Cyril, on the 25th of December, 
was kept the festival of these two, David and James.” 

* These canons are known as the Syriac teaching of the Apostles, and under 
the name of the ‘ false writing of the Latins, called Clemens,’ are rightly de- 
nounced in the margin of p. 76 of the ΑΨ as a forgery. They were perhaps 
forged in Rome as a weapon for use against the Adoptionists in the third 
century; thence they passed into Syria, and thence into Armenia at the end of 
the fourth or early in the fifth century. The Armenian text is made from the 
Syriac, and has been edited by Dr. Dashean, Vienna, 1896 (A/odern Armenian). 
Ananias of Shirak, early in the seventh century, used them in a text slightly 
different from that which is preserved. Cureton edited the Syriac text. 

5 Lequien, Orzens Christ., tom. i. 440 foll., treating of the See of Melitene, 
mentions two bishops named Theodore. ‘The first, who presided over the sixth 
Synod (680 A.D.), can hardly be the one alluded to by Paul, for in his day 
there was no Catholicos named Wahan. ‘The second of the name was living 
in 998, and was present at the Synod of Sisinnius, held at Constantinople in 
that year. At an earlier time he might have written to Wahan, who became 
Catholicos 965, and died, after being deposed, in 977. Paul of Taron, how- 
ever, only survived this Wahan by a few years, and was opposed to his 
Chalcedonist leanings. And the date of both seems too late for the persons 
referred to, especially for Theodorus. 


R 


178 


ἌΡΡΕΝΙ ΙΧ 
MACARIUS’ EPISTLE TO THE ARMENIANS 


THE following is translated from the Old Armenian text, of which 
the Rev. P. J. Kalemkiar, one of the Mechitarist fathers of Vienna, 
sent me a text, based on the following four MSS. preserved in the 
library of his Convent, viz. :— 


(a) Cod. Arm. No. 100 (old Catal. 58), Canon-book, on paper, 
XVii-Xvili cent. 

(ὁ) Cod. Arm. 256 (old Catal. 44), Canon-book, on parchment, 
XVI-Xvii cent. 

(c) Cod. Arm. 58 (old Catal. 15), Canon-book, on paper, xvii-xvili 
cent. 

(2) Cod. Arm. 297 (old Catal. 62 A), Canon-book, on paper, 
XVli-xvill cent. 


The differences between these four MSS. rarely affect the sense ; 
and they all descend, as we shall see, from an original which was 
mutilated in an important passage. 

Macarius I became Patriarch of Jerusalem in 311 or 312. He 
attended the Council of Nice in 325 (Soz. i. 17; Theod. H. £. i. 15). 
Sozomen (27. £. ii. 20) places his death between 331 and 335. The 
Epistle to the Armenians must therefore have been written between 
325 and 335, and is the earliest document we possess bearing on the 
history of the Armenian Church. 

The authenticity of this letter has been questioned, but, as seems to 
me, on insufficient grounds,— 

Firstly, the synchronisms are correct. Macarius in the last years of 
his tenure would have been the contemporary of Wrthanés, the succes- 
sor of Aristaces, who was also one of the Nicene fathers. It is true 
that the Armenian tradition, based on Moses of Chorene, puts the 
date of Wrthanés’ accession as late as 339; but, as Gelzer has 
pointed out, it is quite worthless. It is impossible that St. Gregory 
the Illuminator can have died as late as 332, which the same tradition 
makes him do. Wrthanés was his younger, Aristaces his elder son. 

Secondly, the self-portraiture of Macarius is entirely just. Wrthanés 
was anxious to bring the Christianity of Armenia into line with that of 


APPENDIX IX 179 


the Nicene fathers, and probably sent his priests to the bishop of 
Jerusalem, because his advice was more likely than that of other 
pontiffs to carry weight with his fellow-countrymen, many of whom 
held opinions almost Ebionite in character. Macarius, on the other 
hand, shrinks from intervening, because, according to the constitution 
of the Church, he lacked authority. Now the Bishop of Jerusalem 
became a patriarch by a canon of the Council of Chalcedon, 451 A. D. 
It follows that the letter was written before that date. For a forger of 
a later date would not have put into the mouth of Macarius words 
depreciatory of his authority. 

Thirdly, a forger would not have ascribed his spurious letter to 
Macarius, but to some more noted prelate, probably to Athanasius ; 
or, if he confined himself to Jerusalem, to St. Cyril, whose catecheses 
were translated at an early time (fifth century) into Armenian. 

Fourthly, no Armenian forger of a later date would have admitted 
that a bishop of Basen and Bagrevand was an Arian, nor after 450 A.D. 
have combined these two Cantons under a single bishop!. It is clear 
from the words of Macarius that Tourges claimed an independent 
jurisdiction, as a bishop; and refused to be subordinate to Wrthanés, 
the nominee of Caesarea. Thus he was not only a heretic, but 
a schismatic. 

Fifthly, no forger would have written in so Adoptionist a tone. 
The baptism of the Lord was ‘his illumining birth.’ And after citing 
the saying, ‘ Except a man be born again of water and of spirit, he 
cannot enter the kingdom of God,’ Macarius continues thus: ‘in 
order that we may come to be after the same type (07 manner) dorm 
with him and baptized with him.’ Now the Armenian fathers of the 
fifth and later centuries, though they insisted on keeping Christmas 
along with the Baptism on January the sixth, were careful not to 
represent the Baptism as the re-birth of Jesus Christ, as Macarius 
here does. So far as I know no orthodox writer later than Tertullian 
ventured to do so, though of course it was the original significance of 
the feast. Such phrases, then, as the above cannot have been written 
later than about 330, after which date they would hardly have been 
palatable even to orthodox Armenians. And, indeed, they were so 
little to their taste that the entire passage in which they occur has 
been cut out of the copies of the letter, as it stands in the Armenian 
Canon-books. We should know nothing about it, save for the acci- 
dent of Ananias citing it soon after the year 600 in his ‘ Homily on 
Christmas.’ 

By this time the letter had already been translated into Armenian, 
for the style throughout betokens an original written in the florid and 
verbose Greek of the fourth century. That it was originally written 
in Greek is in itself, under the circumstances, good proof of its 
authenticity. 


1 See note 7 on page 184, below. 
ἰδ ὦ) 


180 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


Turning to the contents of the letter, it is interesting to note that 
several characteristic doctrines of the Aey were already being keenly 
upheld in Armenia. Baptism was deferred, evidently on principle, 
and not for mere want of fonts. The scarcity of the latter is itself 
explicable from the aversion felt for them by the conservative party 
in the Armenian Church (see pp. Ixxvil, Ixxvili). 

To the same party is referable the dislike of Episcopal government ; 
and it is evident that the prerogatives of the bishop as against the 
body of presbyters were hardly established in Armenia at that time. 
The cantons of Basen and Bagrevand are in the province of Ararat ; 
they lie to the west of the Mount Masis or Ararat, and reach south- 
wards as far as Mount Niphates, on the north of Lake Van. They 
border Tsalkotn and were at a later time, as we have seen’, the heart 
of the Paulician country ; and when we read that their bishop Tourges? 
was an Arian, we may assume that he was an Adoptionist. The letter 
of Macarius is, therefore, important testimony to the strength and 
diffusion of the more primitive Christianity in the south-east of 
Armenia in the early part of the fourth century, almost during the 
lifetime of Gregory the Illuminator himself. 


Or the blessed Macarius, Patriarch of the holy city Jerusalem: 
Canonical Letter to the Armenians concerning the regulation® of 
the Ordinances‘ of the Catholic Church, which it is not right by 
definition or by command to transgress. Chapters X. 


Backward- Lo, through awe and fear of God, and loving solicitude for true 
Heo ,, religion among you, I have hastened to awake your pious and simple 


vnatters of minds to seek for the right religion and just regulation® of the Catholic 
faith. Church; and for the weighty ordinances of οὐ, which it is neces- 
sary should be acquired with much circumspection and observed with 
unswerving faith by all who fear God. Among whom you also must 
not procrastinate and remain idle through any supine delay’; but 
must make haste through the grace of the Holy Spirit, through the 
fervour and longings of the divine love, which not only among those 
who are near us inclines to the quest for spiritual aid, but also in a far 
land urges [men] to hurry to the goal with vast longings and keen 
desire, for the sake of the quest that pleases God and of the salvation 
of souls. Bearing in mind the saying that thou shalt not hesitate to 
go a long way, if there be the promise of learning something service- 


1 See p. lix foll. 

2 The name is hardly an Armenian one, and seems rather to be Iberian, or 
perhaps Albanian. Tchamtchean, vol. i. 423, writes ‘ Sourgay.’ 

5. Lit. ‘the laying down of canons.’ 

* a, d omit " of the ordinances.’ 5 and just regulation] 4 omits. 

© a, d omit ‘ of God.’ 

7 Supineness, that is the anxiety to defer baptism was, as we have seen (p. cviii), 
the leading characteristic of the immemorial heresy of Armenia, as Lazar of 
Pharp describes it about 480 A.D. And the same writer, in citing the proverb, 
‘For the bride of the swine a bath of drain water,’ glances at the Paulician 
baptism in rivers, or ‘ in any vessel which comes handy.’ So Gregory of Narek, 
p. 126: ‘it (i.e. baptismal font) consisted of mere bath water.’ 


APPENDIX IX 181 


able ; yea, and having manifested in your souls that longing for Armenian 
spiritual toil for the sake of the divine gain of spiritual treasures, Sarat: 
ye have sent a letter! from a far off land, from your regions of the Jersalem 
east, unto the holy city Jerusalem; and this letter by the hand of for advice. 
reverent priests hath been laid before the multitude of bishops, who 

were gathered together from their several cities. Before whom Macarius 
appearing with humble entreaty, they have asked for an answer to entertains © 
this letter. Now although we were not willing, being weighed down their request: 
by a sense of the slender authority we hold under the weighty usages 

of the Church; nevertheless, the earnest spiritual entreaty and the He will 
pious solicitude of these priests, has compelled us to write and impart "part to 
to your spontaneous piety the essential heads of the ordinances of the TarEeas OF 
Church, the firmness of the faith without any wavering, the entire Nicene 
regulations of the holy council®, which has been held because of the ©omcl 
heretics. These it is needful that all religious persons should accept, 

since it was held for the purpose of laying down the ordinances of the 

Church. 

Furthermore, the spectacle of the very careful ordering of the life- 
giving baptism in the holy city has caused surprise and wonder, that the 
regions of the east are wanting in care in many particulars, such as 
the following. To wit, in sundry places they have no regular fonts, Lack of fonts 
but baptize in any vessel which comes handy. And in some cases ™ BEETS. 
the deacons perform baptism *. And bishops and priests apart and of Abuse of 
themselves hallow the oil of anointing; and as they have not in abun- Bee CTS 
dance the oil of confirmation, which is from the apostles and is 
kept here, they do not anoint the entire organs of sense of the child. 

And there are cases in which the priests in the time of baptism never 
observe the ordinances of the Council at all. 

And in virtue of laying on of hands (ordination), the clergy are Aversion to 
regarded as all of one rank, and do not subordinate themselves to bietrchy- 
superiors ; and other irregularities due to pride and supineness have 
been introduced into the ordinances of the Church by the carnal ones, 
with the which those who have come hither have acquainted us. 

Whereat we are surprised and wonder greatly, and from fear of 
God we have not shrunk from writing promptly, I Macarius, Arch- 
bishop of Jerusalem, and all the number of bishops who are under me ; 
sending to the regions of the east unto your Christ-loving and reverent 
chief Bishop Wrthanés, and to the whole body of the bishops* and Wrthanés 
priests of Armenia; to the end that with much care and reverence Catholicos. 
they may fulfil the regular order [of administration] of the great 
sacrament of God, as it is fulfilled in the Catholic Church ; whereby is 
bestowed out of the grace of the Spirit remission of sins and salvation 


1 The letter seems to have been sent by the Bishop Wrthanés, and the 
Presbyters of that northern section of the Armenian Church which, owing 
to the political rapprochement of the Arsacides to Constantine, was already 
going to Caesarea in Cappadocia for ordination and assimilating itself to 
Roman orthodoxy. 

2 The Council of Nice is referred to. 

3 In the Xzy the elect one can alone baptize. And the custom of deacons 
baptizing is the only one of the irregularities noticed by Macarius which was 
not insisted upon by the Paulicians of a later age as correct and primitive. 
The zy, however, never alludes to deacons. 

* Most of these bishops would belong to Roman Armenia, where each city 
of any size would probably have had its own bishop. 


182 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


of souls, being baptized in the holy font. And the Holy Spirit doth 
not despise those who are desirous of true religion, but, bending low, 
doth come down and make us holy through right faith by means of the 
water of the holy font. 
Baptism And in all this, it is not right for the bishops and elders to be supine 
Hees Ὲ and to postpone the baptism of those who wish to draw nigh devoutly 
om“ unto the religion of God. For it is rather the concern of priests and 
the weighty task of the leaders of the Church to instruct the willing in 
true religion, and teach them by word and doctrine to renounce Satan and 
dedicate themselves to God through the illumination of the holy font ; 
and not to become the cause to any of perdition by want of submission 
and. by any imperfection in the administration of baptism, by reason 
of their deferring it, in order not to confer the entire rite} upon those 
who offer themselves for baptism in the holy font. For this rite the 
universal Church of God fulfils without delaying it, with great care and 
anxious trepidation. 
So then we have made careful investigation under the aforesaid 
heads, and now let us begin in writing to give the decisions which ye 


require. 
Can deacons (1) Whether it be right for deacons to perform baptism, and whether 
baptize ? [in such cases] the sacrament is fully performed? 


Be it known unto your Christ-loving fraternity, that to bishops and 
priests alone belongs this authority; and that it is not right for 
deacons to do it, because they are servants ; and this [rite] is nullified 
by them. And it is superfluous to ask whether, in case of persons 
baptized by them, the rite has been fulfilled. However, it is proper to 
first inquire whether it is the usage of a particular region for deacons 
to baptize; and if one be found to have done so, he is innocent 
because, in ignorance of the ordinances of the Church, he merely 
followed the custom of the land. But if he was cognizant of the 
ordinances of the Church and transgressed them, let punishment be 
inflicted on him according to the scale of his transgression. 


ἘΠ τὸ (2) If they have no hallowed font, and baptize in any vessel which 
be used comes handy, because there was not near a church built unto the 
nna glory of God and [accessible] for the entrance of the congregation, 


then truly there was nothing to blame. But if we have churches, we 
must also make baptisteries and a font, in which to baptize those who 
come in the right faith of true religion. However, if any one should 
chance to be in a place where there is not a church and regular font, 
it is not right to prevent any one from being baptized who desires to 
be; but we must perform his baptism without a regular font, because 
the circumstances compel us to; lest we be found a debtor for the 
But not held salvation [of the man] by hindering his baptism. For the Holy Spirit 
ΞΞΕΘ ΟΣ gives grace according to our prayers and entreaties, and is not hin- 
oly Spirit. = esl Σ Ξ 
dered by want of a font; and on every occasion it is the wish and 
desire that is enough for the grace of the Spirit. Nor is the rite 
fulfilled only in chief feasts; for the apostles did not baptize according 
to a choice of feasts; but according to the sufficiency of those who 
came to them, they were used to illuminate.......... being born? 


1 Lit. ‘ ordering.’ 

* The Arm. verb may also bave an active sense: ‘ Engendering them again.’ 
But there is no need to try to make sense and connect with what precedes, for 
it is just here that the MSS. have been mutilated; and the excerpt of Ananias 
of Shirak should be read after the words ‘ used to illuminate.’ 


APPENDIX IX 183 


again out of the waters, and with triple immersion burying in the 
water of the holy font, we signify the three days’ burial of the Lord 
in the persons of those baptized, a thing which the divine apostle clearly 
shows when he says, ‘Being buried with him in the baptism, let us 
become imitators of the likeness of his death, to the end that by the 
renewal of resurrection we may become participators with him in 
the life eternal’ And thus with right faith laying on our hands, the 
Holy Spirit is bestowed unto our salvation, illuminating those who are 
called to adoption. And in faith we are anointed with the oil of 
holiness ; and thus in the several parts prescribed the ordinances 
of the holy Church are duly carried out, without any transgression of 
the prescribed rules ; and we are made pre-eminent in the heavenly 
ranks 1, as we learned from the spiritual fathers, the disciples of the 
holy apostles. 


(3) And how are the orders? of the holy Church disposed ? 

Let overseers be established in regular abodes, with authority to 
administer rightly the goods, to the supervision of which they have 
been called. And in receiving from them let not [others] be puffed 
up with pride, holding themselves in their foolishness to be wise, nor 
let them lapse into wickedness. For although grace is bestowed in 
a single way on the faithful, yet all are not alike in honour. And 
although the Infinite made himself little, yet he lost not the glory 
of the Godhead thereby‘; and to all the apostles after his resur- 
rection he was manifested as the giver of life; but some he ranks 
above the rest, and from the very first established the same over us. 
And accordingly Paul forbids us to go beyond one another, saying : 
‘Let each one unto whatever calling he hath been called, abide in the 
same.” And as I have prescribed let them be content with the posi- 
tions severally appointed unto them. 


(4) Accordingly with the unanimous approval of the clergy and 
bishops and priests and deacons, I, Macarius, Archbishop of the holy 
city of Jerusalem, hand on to you this canon law, having learned it 
from the histories of the apostles, and on the tradition of the fathers 
it is firmly based among us, that, as we said above, it belongs to 
bishops and priests alone to perform baptism and laying on of hands, 
and the chief bishop shall alone bless the oil of purification (07 of 
holiness). But by reason of great distance and stress of circum- 
stances, at the command of the archbishop, two or three bishops met 
together and deacons, administrants of holiness,...... ®and the 
oil of anointing for the dead and the sick and the baptized, the priests 
shall by themselves alone bless, and the bishops. This our holy fathers 
prescribed, and let no one venture to change the rule rightly pre- 
scribed, lest the chain of their anathema engage them and cut them 
off from God. 


(5) And how shall we draw nigh to the holy table and quickening 
sacrament ? 

Let no one venture to approach this portion of immortality 
in double-mindedness, or with want of faith, or in unworthiness 


1 ¢ has ‘ ranks of the angels.’ 

2 gy ‘ordinances,’ by which I render this word elsewhere. 

3. This was the function of the earliest bishop, and accordingly in the canon 
of Sahak the offerings of the faithful are to be stored in his house. 

* dhas ‘the glory of the holiness,’ which is the fotior /ectio. 

> There is clearly a lacuna here in the text, to the detriment of the meaning, 


Function 
of the 
Bishop. 


Their higher 
grade. 


Duties of 
Bishop 

and of 
Presbyters. 


Bishop alone 
to make the 
Chrism. 


How the 
Eucharist 
shall be 
received. 


Confession 

of orthodox 
faith before 
receiving it. 


Hot bread 
to be eaten 
in Eucharist. 


Disposition 
of holy table, 
veil, font, 
and clergy. 


Censure of 
heretical 
opponents. 


Arian bishop 
of Basen 
and Bagre- 


vand, 


184 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


of works. For he will move the will of God unto wrath on all the 
earth, and will himself hear the saying : ‘Wherefore at all dost thou 
recount my righteousness, since thou hast hated my precept?’ But 
with correct walking and just faith let him approach and be illumined, 
and work out himself salvation for others also. 


(6) And how is it right to celebrate the Sacrament, the salutary 
Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord? 

It is meet to celebrate it in fear and with care, and to make a right 
confession of faith, separate and apart from the sacraments of heretical 
tempters ; lest, through the proximity of Arians!, the name and truth 
of God be blasphemed according to the apostle. 


(7) And in what way shall the offering of holiness be disposed ? 

Hot bread is to be laid on the holy ? table, according to the tradition 
of the apostles, and incorruptible without any admixture®: for we are 
not saved by aught corruptible, but by the incorruptible body “ of the 
spotless and unblemished lamb. And this table only shall the deacons 
adjust, but that which is fulfilled upon it the priests shall fulfil. 


(8) And how shall the table of the Sacrament be arranged, and 
what other ordinances are there ? 

The table of expiation is under a veil, on which the Holy Spirit 
descends. And the font is behind in the same house, and out of 
honour set up on the right hand®. And the clergy in their several 
grades shall do the service, and the congregation outside the veil, and 
the catechumens at the door, listening; lest by outstripping one 
another their ranks be effaced; but let each set remain in his own 
position irreproachable. 


(9) These principles of the faith and order of the Church I hand on 
to you in accordance with your supplications, and we pronounce an 
anathema on those who are otherwise minded. For having received 
from one another through laying on of hands the grace, we do not 
tolerate shortcomings ; and we do not esteem as being all of the same 
honour the degrees of dignity ὅ rightly ordained for the Church; and 
we reprimand persons mad for glory, that hold the opposite opinion, 
as hath been related to us of Tourges, the Bishop of Basen and 
Bagrevand’, who for a little time was united with the Arians, and 
then felt scruples, and now again is insolently minded, [being] 
a bishop only with a throne (07. seat), and arrogating to himself 
the same honour as an archbishop has, which he is not worthy to 
receive. For the fathers have not handed down the teaching that we 


" This passage proves the prevalence in Armenia at that time of Arian, 
i.e. Adoptionist, opinion. The very Eucharist is to be used by the faithful as 
an engine for excluding them. 

* 6, ¢ omit ‘holy.’ 

* According ... admixture] c has: ‘and the cup incorruptible and unmixt 
without aught according to the apostolic traditions’; ὁ has: ‘ of the apostle,’ 
in singular, for ‘ of the apostles.’ 

* ὁ, c add ‘and blood.’ 

* Or perhaps, punctuating differently, we should take this passage to mean 
that the clergy were to be on the right hand of the table. 

® (Ὁ) ἀξιώματα. 

7 In Elisaeus Vardapet, History of Wrthan, 450 A.D. (ed. Venice, 1859, 
p. 22), we have a list of bishops preserved, according to which each of these 
cantons has its own bishop. Macarius plainly refers to an earlier time when 
one bishop was enough for both, and he an Arian or Adoptionist. 


APPENDIX IX 185, 


should introduce into the Church any such antagonisms, and it is 
inexpedient to regard him as equal [to the archbishop], until by being 
called he succeeds to the honour of the throne. 

Therefore you must gently summon such an one to obedience, 
but if he is obstinate, then shun him as an alien. 

All the Churches greet you. Fare you well in the Lord, being firm 
and right in faith. Amen. 


The lacuna on p.182 admits of being filled in from the following 
passage of Ananias of Shirak (c. 600), who, it may be noticed, puts in 
the sixth chapter of the letter of Macarius what the modern MSS. put 
in the second. His text was, therefore, differently divided. 


Or Ananias of Shirak, called the arithmetician, on the manifestation 
of our Lord and Saviour. 


.... But many years after they’ laid down their canons, as some 
say, by the disciples of the heretic Cerinthus was this festival (sc. of 
the Birth on Dec. 25th) invented, and came to be received by the 
Greeks, as being a people fond of feasts and ardent in religion, and 
from them it spread over the entire world. But in the days of the 
holy Constantine, this feast had not been received in the holy Council 
of Nicea by the holy fathers; but they decided to keep the feast 
according to the aforesaid canon of the holy apostles. And the same 
is clear from the letter of the blessed Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusa- 
lem, which he wrote to the land of Armenia concerning the direction 
of the Holy Baptism. For he was one of the 318 fathers of Nicea. 
And it is written as follows in the sixth chapter of the directions laid 
down by him :— 


‘However, there are three feasts on which our fathers” in par- 
ticular celebrated the rite of Baptism in the holy font with zeal and 
enthusiasm, being desirous on them more than on other days to 
urge unto baptism those who have given themselves up to God, and 
to fulfil [in them] the type of the great saving mystery, which on those 
holy and famous days was fulfilled. And men are full of longing to 
fulfil it in the holy places of Christ; and verily it is meet for all 
Christians who reverence Christ to fulfil on ‘these days the calling of 
Baptism, namely, on the holy manifestation (ov Epiphany) of the Lord’s 
birth, on the saving Zatik of the life-giving passion of Christ, and on 
Pentecost full of grace, the day on which the divine descent of the 
quickening Spirit was diffused among us. 

Wherefore it is proper to acquaint you with the particular import of 
each of these feasts, of the Birth and of the Baptism, to the end that 


Baptism at 
the three 
great feasts. 


Birth and 
Baptism of 


Christ one 


ye may diligently fulfil the same. For our expiatory birth in the holy feast, 


font is (ov was) fulfilled on the same saving day with the illumining 
birth of Christ, because on that very day he took on himself to be 
baptized out of condescension to us*. For it was not because he was 
himself in any need of baptism; but he wished to cleanse us from the 
stain of sin. Accordingly he cries out loud, saying: ‘ Unless a man 


1 i.e. the Apostles. See note 4 on p. 177. 

2 The printed text (Petersburg, 1877) of Ananias is corrupt here. I restore 
the words ‘ our fathers’ from the Marsh MS. 467 of the Bodley, so often referred 
to in my prolegomena. 

3. oy “in order to come down to us.’ 


Pentecost. 


186 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ 
To the end that we may come to be born along with him after the same 
type (or way) and baptized along with him on the day of the birth 
of Christ. But in the life-bringing resurrection of Zatik, by putting 
to death our sins in the waters of the font, we become imitators of the 
death with which our Lord Jesus Christ was put to death; and being 
buried with triple immersion in the water of the holy font, we shadow 
forth in the persons of the baptized the three days’ burial of our Lord, 
according to the clear intimation of the divine apostle, who said?: 
‘Being buried with him in baptism, let us become like him in the 
likeness of his death, to the end that with the renewal of his resurrec- 
tion we may become sharers with him in life eternal.’ But on the day 
of the grace-bestowing, hallowing Pentecost [we celebrate] the inspira- 
tion flashing with light of the quickening Spirit, which in the form of 
fiery tongues descended on the Apostles, that they might by laying 
hands on the baptized bestow on them the gifts of grace they had 
received from the Spirit. After the same type do we also on the same 
day lay hands on the baptized, and thereby the same Spirit is bestowed 
on them. And the type of it we carefully observe, and fulfil it without 
ceasing, to the end that we may become perfect. 


So far Macarius. 


1 What follows seems to be a paraphrase rather than a citation of Rom. 
ΥἹ. 4; 5. 


EXCURSUS ON THE ARMENIAN STYLE OF 
THE KEY OF TRUTH 


IN the following list I give post-classical and rare words occurring 
in the twenty-two chapters of the Key, followed by the names and 
dates of Armenian authors who use them. Most of my references are 
taken from the Great Armenian Lexicon (containing 6,600 closely- 
printed columns), Venice, 1836 :— 


p. 1. guyfip, ‘events.’ Anania Catholicos, tenth cent. 

Pp. 2. upputine£p, ‘sanctifying. Common in Gregory of Narek, 
tenth cent. The prayer in which this word comes is interpolated in 
the text of the Aey, but must be as old as the tenth century. 

Pp. 2. yrcumXbd; ‘illumining’; in the same prayer. Anania of 
Narek, c. 950. Theodore Qrhthenavor, seventh cent. 

p. 3. deg «τη gfgtruy feupypleuy) “sin on sin, thronging thick 
together.’ The characteristic combination gfgh, puipybgf in Gregory 
of Narek, tenth cent. The entire phrase, ἐν ει εἴη, ‘fi dequig flspusy, 
in the middle Armenian version of Chrysostom on Genesis, a post- 
classical work of uncertain date. 

p. 6. Sacdfunylinnef, ‘office of chief shepherd.’ In Thomas 
Artsruni, ninth cent. But the word $acsfusmbun, ‘chief shepherd,’ 
is Classical. ‘ 

Ρ. 6. ςμ δε ων ‘was made glad.’ Chosrow, bishop, and father 
of Gregory of Narek, c. 950 A.D., and Moses Choren Paraphrase 
of Aphthonius ; seventh cent. 

Ρ. 11. Unpununlrysd, ‘new created,’ epithet of Adam. Moses Choren, 
in Paraphrase of Aphthonius. 

P. 11. gqlduszyus yu, ‘fastened about with chains.’ Gregory of Narek 
alone uses this word, and he only in the compound form 9o[dtu 21~ 
[Puzjussup, i.e. ‘with lips fastened together with chains” The 
διορθωτής has actually restored the latter reading in the MS.; and 
2p[Fu1 39 [Fuyuryup is the original reading according to Ter Galoust’s 
copy. If we adopt this reading, we must render thus: ‘their newly- 
fashioned palace (i.e. body) was lost, being bound about the lips 
with chains.’ Thus the better evidenced reading is a very rare and 
artificially compounded word peculiar to Gregory of Narek. 


188 THE KEY OF TRUTH 


p. 14. gurSuekd, ‘over the precipice.’ In Gregory Magistros, 
eleventh cent., and in hymns of earlier date.’ 

Ρ. 15. yusprupngar[dfetu, ‘ceremonies.’ John Catholicos, ninth 
cent., and Wrdan, thirteenth cent., in a commentary on Psalms com- 
piled from old sources. 

p. 18. gabpuypphumavt, ‘anti-christ.’ John Philosopher, tract 
against Paulicians, ὦ. 718; Gregory of Narek, tenth cent., and Photius’ 
letter to Ashot, ninth or tenth cent. The earlier word was “[,4n4%, 
i.e. Neron. 

Ρ. 19. YAnwputk, ‘decrees’ Not in the great Armenian 
dictionary. 

p. 25. pulyufuutop, ‘delay. Gregory of Narek, and Chrysostom 
on St. John ; fifth and eleventh cents. 

p. 28. fipdujif, ‘was foreshadowed. In Chosrow and Gregory 
of Narek; both tenth cent. These four verses seem to be an early 
interpolation. — 

Pp. 30. gauyy, ‘dissolute. Gregory of Narek in the tract called 
Khrat,a moral treatise which is by some ascribed to a later writer of the 
thirteenth century ; though the authors of the great dictionary incline 
to regard Gregory of Narek as the author on grounds of style. The 
phrase for ‘ original sin’ occurs in this tract, of which I have spoken 
in the prolegomena, p. cxxvi. A careful study of the A/raf convinces 
me that it is at least as old as the tenth century, if not older. It may 
be the work of Chosrow, father of Gregory of Narek. 

Pp. 30. φως pula, ‘a taker of profits.’ In the Mashdotz, of various 
dates prior to about 800. 

Ρ. 31. $&gopkt, ‘submissive to law.’ In the version of Hesychius, 
seventh cent. ; and Wrdan’s Catena on Pentateuch, compiled from old 
sources. 

Ρ- 31. Uapuspayu, ‘new born’ or ‘newly sprouting.’ Only in Moses 
Choren. Panegyric on St. Rhipsima, seventh cent., and Erznkatzi, 
c. 1300. 

Ρ- 33- yaeuuy prog, ‘ giving hope.’ Chosrow, tenth cent., and George, 
Catena on Isaiah, compiled in thirteenth century from classical fathers. 

Ρ- 39. pwtluunbydnr[Ffet, ‘eloquence.’ Gregory of Narek, tenth 
cent.; Gregory Magistros, died c. 1058 ; and Gregory Mashkouori, died 
1114. 

Ρ. 40. fubrgfunnwh, ‘scurrilous.’ Sarkis, Catena on Catholic Epistles, 
compiled from early fathers in twelfth cent., and Nerses Shnorhali, 
twelfth cent. 

Pp. 40. gusprupuu's, ‘foul-mouthed.’ In the version of the Lives of 
the Fathers of the Desert, fifth to eighth cents. 

Ρ. 40. funqupuipnyy; ‘swinish in their lives.’ In the 7ézakan book, 
compiled from early sources, and in Wrdan’s catena similarly compiled. 


EXCURSUS 189 


p- 42. é£u, ‘natural’ or ‘usual.’ In Oskifhorik, Middle Armenian 
of uncertain date. 

Pp. 42. ζωμ[4 $aseusmus, ‘on an entire level.’ In John Catholicos, 
ninth cent. 

P. 50. wihfuugybyb or utbfuufuntyb. ΤῸ old versions of Basil and 
Cyril Alex., Lzves of the Fathers, ὅς. A classical word. 


In the above list are given only words which are very rare or 
unknown in the fifth century Armenian. The agreement with the 
vocabulary of Chosrow and of his son Gregory of Narek is very 
marked ; and there are passages in the Key which the latter writer, 
when at his best, might well have penned, e.g. the first half of 
chap. ii. 

In the liturgical parts of the Key there are no words or phrases 
which do not belong to the golden age of Armenian literature, 
i.e. to the fourth and fifth centuries. 

I have already noticed the resemblances with Zenob’s style in the 
use of ny or qnyr at the beginning of a sentence. It is hardly neces- 
sary to give examples, which any Armenist can easily pick out 
for himself. He will find them in Zenob, pp. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 
17, 26, 56. 

Two modern forms of verbs occur, and only two, in the Key, viz. : 
[uu fy p. 13, and μα ει, p. 26,—a very small allowance consider- 
ing the history of the book. 

The chief vulgarisms are either orthographic only, e.g. confusions 
of g and uy of p and fu, of fu and 7 of ἡ and pf; or concern the use 
of prepositions. Thus [δίνην on p. 25, is used with the instrumental 
case, whereas in classical Armenian it governs a genitive. And after 
verbs signifying to give to, to speak to or address, to command, and 
so forth, the preposition wn or wn ’f is sometimes wrongly used for 
the prefix g- But even in these cases the right use predominates, 
proving that the exceptions are only modernisms which have crept into 
the text by reason of ignorant scribes. Such uses are even found in 
Zenob, e.g. p.12: fun’ qgusybuhut. 

The use of the participle for a finite verb which is found in the 
Catechism is common in Zenob and in Gregory Magistros, and is 
frequent in Middle Armenian. The use of the indicative for the 
conjunctive mood after verbs of entreaty is also found in Zenob, 
e.g. p. 9, wqusbw gh df... divunncguitlru. We also have in the 
Key the pronoun wy = ‘ille,’ added redundantly after nouns almost 
as a definite article, like ἐκεῖνος in the Gospels. This use can be 
paralleled from the works of Sebeos in the seventh century. It seems 
to be original in the Aey, and not due to scribes. In default, however, 
of a grammar or dictionary, which takes account of such little points 
as those which I have noticed, it is not easy to say what could and 


190 THE KEY OF (CRUtTE 


what could not be written early in the ninth century. On the whole 
the difficulty lies in putting such very good Armenian as the Key is 
largely written in so late as 800; and it is remarkable that so late 
a copy contains so few vulgarisms. 


NOTE ON THE TRANSLITERATION OF 
ARMENIAN NAMES. 


The writer has not followed the scientific system invented by com- 
parative philologists, such as Hiibschmann and Brugmann; for most 
of their symbols are unintelligible except to students of philology. 
On the other hand it was necessary to avoid the usual mode of 
transliterating Armenian letters according to which Paulos, Petros, 
Karapet, Sahak, Pap, Taron, Turuperan, Mkherttschian, Alban, Grigor 
are disguised as Boghros, Bedros, Garabed, Sahag, Bab, Daron, 
Duruberan, Muggerditschian, Aghrouan, Krikor, and so forth. The 
following equivalents have therefore as a rule been used :-— 


p=b: g¢=s: τα ΞΘ :7=—2 : fc ore: p—e or 
i: (#=th: ὁ =j (asin jury): ,;=1:f=kh: $=ts:f=k: 
S$ =h:4a4=ds: Ὶ ΞΞ 1 or A (which it always represented in Armenian 
transliterations of Greek names) : X= dsh:  =h at the beginning 
a word, and y elsewhere : 9 = sh: s =tch : 4 =p: 9 =dj (as in 
adjure) : πὶ ξξ Τῇ or ¢ (a strong rolled r): ~=worv: m=t: 
porigztz:c=v:#=ph orf: p=q : a =ou or u. 


ΙΟΙ 


ΓΕ Σ 


Abousa’ad, A.D. 847, invades Arme- 
nia and is slain, Ixiv. 

Adam, the Repentance of, translated 
into Armenian, cxxxii 7. 

— Jesus Christ the new Adam, clxxxvi. 
Adoptionism of Paulicians, xxxy, xli, 
Ixxxvii, 74, 75, 80, 100, 108, 114. 

— of St. Augustine, cxxvii. 

— the earliest faith of Armenia, οἷ", 
cvii. 

— contrasted with pneumatic Christo- 
logy, exci foll. 

Adoptionist Church, its rites and 
beliefs, Ixxxvii-ix, cxxix, cxciii. 

— in Spain, exxvii, clxx folk. 

— in N. Africa, cxxvii, clxix. 

— its monuments, Zhe Shepherd of 
Hermas, lxxxix, and Acts of Arche- 
laus, xcvii. 

— used Western Text of New Testa- 
ment, cxcii. 

— its leaders—Theodotus, xcii; Arte- 
mon, xc; Paul of Samosata, xcv; 
Photinus, xcvi 72. 

— its claim to apostolic origin, xci; 
see Paulician. 
Adoptivus homo. 

clxxii, clxxvi foll. 

Adoration of elect ones by the faith- 
ful, xxvii, lii. 

— in early British Church, clxxiii 22. 

— among the Albigeois, lvi. 

Adult Baptism, xxxiii, lxxvi, cxvil, 
clxii. 

— insisted on by Tertullian, cxxi foll. 

— among the Cathari of Coln, cxl. 

— among the Albigeois, cxlii. 

— presupposed in orthodox Arme- 
nian form of baptism, clxxxviii [0]]. 


Its meaning, 


Agapé before Eucharist continued by 
Paulicians, lxxix. 

— in early Armenian Church, lxxxiv, 
clxiii. ; 

— in Egypt in fourth cent., Ixxxiii. 

— pigeons eaten at, clxiii. 

— separated from Eucharist in Ar- 
menia before 700 A. D., clviii. 

Akhaltzik in Russian Armenia, 
Paulicians settle at, xxiii. 

Albania of the Caucasus Paulician 
in faith, lvii, lviii, ciii, 136, 142, 153. 

— its Catholici invested at Edjmiat- 
zin, lviii. 

Albigenses, their adoration of the 
Elect, lvi; see Immanence. 

— Ritual of, 160 foll. ; see Consola- 
mentum and Cathar. 

Alcuin on Adoptionists of Spain, 
clxxiii foll. 

Alexius, Duke, son-in-law of Em- 
peror Manuel, 157. 

All Saints, Feast of, in Armenia, clx. 

Alogi reject John’s Gospel, xciii. 

— were forerunners of Theodotus, 
xciil. 

Altar of stone forbidden, Ixxx, Ixxxii, 
clxvi. 

— the only Armenian equivalents have 
pagan associations, clxv 72. 

Anabaptists, a survival of the old 
Adoptionist Church, cl, excvi. 

Ananias of Narek, his work on the 
Paulicians lost, Ixii, 126, 130, 143, 
155. 

Ananias of Shirak on quartodecu- 
man observance of Pauliani, clii. 
— on invention of modern Christmas, 

clvi. 


192 


Annunciation, Feast of, not kept in 
Armenia, clix. 

Anthimus of Tyana_ consecrates 
Faustus, cxii. 

Anthropolatry, why charged against 
the Paulicians, cxxxiv, 127 foll. 
Antioch, Paulicians there during 

Crusades, cxxxix. 

— Paulician missionaries go thence to 
Armenia, Cix. 

Aphtharto-docetism of the Arme- 
nians, Cxcy. 

Apl-Vard Amir murders Paulicians, 
126. 

Apostolic tradition of the Paulician 
Church, xxxiii, ciii, 73, 74, 76, 80, 
86, 87, 91, 126, 127. 

Arabion Castellum on the upper 
Zab, cii. 

Arabs protect the Paulicians, lvii, lix. 

Aradjavor, a Fast of the Armenian 
Church, Ixxxy, clx. 

Archelaus, Bishop of Karkhar, an 
Adoptionist, xcvii foll. 

— his see lay in Pers.-Armenia, ci foll. 

— resembled in faith the Spanish 
Adoptionists, elxxvi. 

— mentions wang or rest-houses in 
Pers.-Armenia, clxvi. 

— his text of New Testament, cxcii. 

Arevordiq, or Armenian Manicheans, 
exxxii, 148,157 foll., 176. 

Argaous, Paulician centre, its topo- 
graphy, lxxiii. 

Aristaces of Lastivert, his notice of 
Paulicians, lxix, cxx, cxxviii, 131 foll. 

Arkhwéli, Paulician settlement in 
Russian Armenia, xxiii. 

Armenia, Christianity of, originally 
Adoptionist and of Syrian origin, 
ciii, civ, cix, Cx, συ, 

Armenian New Testament first trans- 
lated from the old Syriac, cix, cx. 
Armenians, orthodox, their baptismal 

service described, clxxxviii. 

— their ordinal, cxc. 

Arshak, Armenian king, deposes 
Nerses Catholicos, cxii, cxiii. 

Artemas or Artemon of Kome, xc, 
CXXVi, 


INDEX 


Artemas invented the modern Christ- 
mas, clvi. 

Atonement, possibility that Paulicians 
rejected doctrine of, clxii. 

Augustine, St., of Canterbury, clxxix, 
clxxxii. 

— of Hippo, converted by Adoptionist 
Christians, cxxvii. 

— influence of his work on Manicheans 
in Middle Ages, cxli. 

— libels Priscillian, xlv. 

Auterius, the Albigeois. cxxxv. 


Baptism, Paulician, xxvi, xxxv, xlix, 
ἘΣΣΙ 77, QI, 92, 90. 

—was adult only, xxxiii, 1, Ixxvi, 
cxvli, 181. 

— followed rule of Tertullian, cxxi foll. 

— conditional on repentance and faith, 
xxxiv, lxxxvili, 72-77, 117. 

— without anointing, lxxvii. 

— induces the Holy Spirit, xxxv, 100, 
109, II, I12. 

— catechumen stripped in, xxxviii, 97. 

—in running water, Ixxvii, Ixxxii, 
180 722. ; see Adult. 

—on eighth day among orthodox 
Armenians, 1xxxiii. 

— deferred in fourth cent. to death-bed, 
cexlix. 

— its analogue among Cathars, ibid. 

Baptism of Jesus, its import among 
the Adoptionists, lxxxvii, Ixxxix, 
xcvii, clxxiii foll., 185. 

— Ancient lections on Feast of, cliii. 

— was regarded as the real birth of 
Christ, xcviii, cliii foll. 

— why omitted from orthodox creeds, 
xcvill. 

— more important among Paulicians 
than His passion and resurrection, 
elxii. 

Barsumas, Bishop, mentioned byBasil, 
cxili. 

Bartholomew, St., martyred at 
Arabion Castellum, cii. 

Basen, ‘Arian bishop of, 179, 184. 

Basil of Cappadocia propagates 
Nicene faith in Armenia, cxii. 

— goes to Nicopolis with Theodotus, 
cxiii. 


INDEX 


Basil on Armenian heresy, cxiii, cxiv. 

— against Eunomius, cxv. 

— Armenian canons of, about the 
Agapé, clxiil. 

Basle, missionaries from, settle at 
Shusha, xxvii 7. 

— their printing-press, ibid. 

Bavarian Christians, 
Adoptionists, clxxx. 

Bede against Adoptionism, xv, clxxix. 

Bezae Codex, its Adoptionist readings, 
cliii, cxcii. 

Bodhi-Sattva, how born, cxciv 2. 

Bogomiles, converts of Paulician 
missionaries, cxxxvii, cl. 

— were they Manicheans? ibid. 

— their relations with the Cathars, 
exlvii foll. 

— their literature undiscovered, cxcvi. 

Bouha, the Emir, A.D. 855, slays 
Smbat, Ixv. 

British Church, its buildings, clxvii. 

— claimed authority of St.Peter, clxx. 

— was it Adoptionist? xiv, clxxix foll. 

—held doctrine of Immanence of 
Christ in the believer, clxxiii 22, 

Burgundy, Christians of, originally 
Adoptionist, clxxx. 

Byzantine policy to eject Paulicians 
from the Empire, 1xxi. 


originally 


Caesarius of Arles on original sin, 
CXXVi. 

Callisthenes (Pseudo-), on 
Stranga, cii. 

Canon of Paulicians, xxxvii, xliii, 
148. 

Canons, Syriac, of the Apostles, 76, 
177 71. 4. 

Cathar ritual of Lyon, cxli foll. 

— its affinity to Paulician rites, cxlix. 

Cathars of Tréves and Coln, their 
view of the Eucharist resembles the 
Paulician, lv, cx1 foll. 

— of Toulouse, x, cxl. 

— their rule of fasting, cxlv. 

— their intercourse with the'Paulicians 
of late date, cxlvii foll. 

Cedrenus, Geo., on river Stranga, 
ix »., Cii: 


river 


193 


Charlemagne represses 
Adoptionists, clxxvii. 
Chosroés, Armenian bishop in Basil's 

letters, cxiii. 

Chosrow, King of Persia, convokes 
a council, Ixvii. 

— favours the Monophysites, Ixviii. 

Christ, His divinity denied by the 
Paulicians, vi, xxiv, xxvi, xli. 

— Docetic view of, cxciv foll. 

— our only Intercessor, xxvi. 

—his passion little regarded by 
Paulicians, clxii. 

Christhood of the Elect, xl, li foll., 
cxxxli [0]]. ; see Immanence. 

Christmas identical with Baptism of 
Christ, x, Ixxviil. 

— origin of modern feast, vii, clvi 
foll.; see Baptism of Christ and 
Artemon. 

Church, HolyApostolicand Universal, 
Paulicians claim to be it, xxxiii, xli, 
73,76, 80, 86, 87, 141, 142, 147, 148. 

— regarded as union of the faithful, 
clxiv foll. 

Churches of stone disliked by Pauli- 
cians, lxxviii, xxx, Ixxxv, clxvi foll. 

Clédat’s edition of Cathar New Testa- 
ment and Ritual, 160 foll. 

Clemen, Dr. Otto, on Socinians, cli. 

Clemens, canons of, identify Birth 
with Baptism of Jesus Christ, cliv. 

— their origin, 177 71. 4. 

Clemens, Alex., does not recognize 
infant baptism, cxxi. 

Clementine Homilies on Bishops,lv. 

Columba, St., Christ immanent in 
him, cl xxiii. 

Confession of sins to'be made to God 
alone, and not auricularly to priests, 
Xxvi, xxxvi, 96, 134. 

Consolamentum of Albigeois, cxli, 
cxly foll., 160 foll. 

— compared with Paulician election, 
ibid. 

— was a general form for conferring 
all gifts of the Spirit, cxlix. 

Constantine Monomachus commis- 
sions Gregory Magistros to harry 
the Paulicians, 146. 


Spanish 


194 


Constantine V, emperor, a Pauli- 
cian, xlii, cxvi. 

— why called Copronymus, ibid. 

— why called Σαρακηνόφρων, clxxiv. 

Constantine, Paulician leader, born 
in Mananali, 1xxiii. 

Constantine Porphyrogenitus on 
Smbat, lxiii. 

Councils, the Catholic, repudiated by 
Paulicians, xxv. 

Cross, worship of, rejected by Pauli- 
cians, xxiii, xlii, Ixxix, cxxviii. 

Cross-stealers in modern Armenia, 
CXxix. 

Crusades, their influence in bringing 
together Cathars of the West and 
Paulicians in the East, exlvii. 

Cunitz, first edits the Cathar ritual 
of Lyon, 160 foll. 

Cyprian on Birth and Baptism of 
Jesus, elvii. 

Cyril’s Catecheses in Armenian, 179. 


Dashian, Father, edits Syriac Canons, 
177 2. 4. 

De Montibus Sina et Sion, an early 
Adoptionist book, xiv z., c. 

— teaches the immanence of Christ in 
the faithful, exxxiv. 

Denzinger, Ritus Orientales,cited,cxc. 

Development of doctrine in early 
Church, xcvi. 

Diadin, the ancient Zarehavan, birth- 
place of Smbat the Paulician, Ix. 
Didaché of the Apostles contains 
usages of Paulician Church, lxxvii, 

Ixxxiii. 

— on immanence of Christ in the 
prophet, cxxxii, cxxxiv, clxxxi foll. 

— its Eucharist compared with the 
Paulician, clxiii. 

Djéwiurm, or Djaurm, or Tschaurm, 
or Djermay, a Paulician village in 
Turkey, xxiii, xxvii, 138. 

— described, Ixx. 

Djrkay, early Paulician centre, lvii. 

Docetism, absence of, in the Key, 
χχχῖχ, 108, 

— inherent in orthodox doctrine of 
the Incarnation, xcvii 7., cxciv foll. 


INDEX 


Docetism of Mani, cxxxi, cxciv. 

Dwin or Twin, early seat of Catholi- 
cos of Pers-Armenia, on Araxes,152. 

Dualists, Paulicians not, xxxvi, 79, 
114; see Manicheans. 


Ear, Virgin conceives through, excivz. 

Eastward position forbidden, lxxx. 

Ebionite Church Adoptionist, xci, 
xcii. 

— their form of Gospel, Ixxxix. 

Ebios, heretical book translated into 
Armenian, cxxxii 7. 

Eckbert of Bonn (twelfth cent.) on 
Cathari, ly, cxl. 

Edjmiatzin, Synod of, 
against Paulicians, xxiii, 
xxvii, Xxviil. 

Elect ones can alone baptize, xxxiv. 

—can alone bind and loose, xxxvii, 
Cxxiv, 105, 108, 133, 149. 

— regarded as Christs, xl, li foll., 
clxxiii, elxxxi, 40, 95, 102,127,144. 

— among Manicheans, cxxxi. 

Election of Jesus as Messiah in 
Justin M., xci. 

— among Ebionites, xcii. 

— in Theodotus of Rome, ibid. 

—-in Archelaus, c. 

— among Adoptionists 
clxxvl. 

Elia, a Roman castellum, on the 
Murad Chai, Ixix, 138. 

Elipandus, Adoptionist archbishop 
of Toledo, clxx foll. 

Endura among Cathars, cxlv foll. 

Enhueber on Spanish Adoptionists, 
celxxix. 

Epiphanius, his Panarium, 147. 

Epiphany feast same as Baptism 
of Jesus, clx; see Christmas and 
Birth. 

Eritzean, Mr., of Tiflis, on the 
Thonraki, xxiii foll. 

Eucharist, Paulician, xxxvii, xlvii, 
CXXXV, CXCi. 

— as part of Agapé, Ixxix, Ixxxiii. 

— single loafin, xxxviii,xlix,clxiii,123. 

— resembled Eucharist of the Dida- 
ché, clxiii. 


proceeds 
XXiv, 


of Spain, 


INDEX 


Eucharist, heretical (i.e. orthodox), 
xxxvii, xliii, xlvii, 123, 124, 126. 
— figurative character among Pauli- 

cian, liii, liv. 

—not to be celebrated in a church, 
Ixxviii, clxii, clxvi. 

Eucharistic elements the body and 
blood of the elect one, liii, cxxxvi, 
ὍΣΟΙ, 1.22: 

Eunomius, his errors and creed, cxv. 

Eustathius, Armenian bishop in 
Basil’s letters, cxiii. 

Evans, Mr. Arthur, on the Bogo- 
miles, cxxxviii. 

Evervinus on Cathari, exlii. 

Exorcism, Paulician, xxxviii, 92,97. 


Fasting, ancient rule of, cxlv. 

Fasts of Catholic Church rejected, 
XXV, ΧΧΥΪ. 

— of early Armenian Church, clx foll. 

Faustus, the Manichean, cxlviii. 

— on Adoptionist faith, clxix. 

Felix of Urgel, his Adoptionism, 
elxxii foll. 

Fish as emblem of Christ of Adop- 
tionist origin, vii, cliii. 

Fonts, aversion to, of early Armenian 
Christians, lxxvii, lxxxii, 181; see 
Baptism. 

Friedrich, J., on the Panlicians, xl 72. 

— on their Christology, xliv, cxxxiii. 

Fronto, Armenian bishop of Nico- 
polis, a heretic, cxiv. 

Frrisn, Armenian bishop’s palace in 
Mananali, 140. 

Fulgentius on original sin, cxxvi. 


Gascony, Paulicians of, cxl. 

Gelzer, Prof., on the Paulicians, lxxy. 

Genesios cited, xli. 

Genuflexions rejected, xxv, xxvi. 

Georgian version of New Testament, 
Ixxxix 7. 

Georgius Monachus, the 
Scorialensis of, xl. 

Giumri (Alexandrapol), Paulicians 
of, xxiv. 

Gortosak, heretical book translated 
in Old Armenian, cxxxii 72. 


Codex 


195 


Gospel of the Infancy, translated into 
Armenian, cxxxii 22. 

Gregory the Illuminator, Paulicians 
claim descent from him, xxiil, 
Ixxxli, cxix. 

— carried about a wooden table for 
the Eucharist, lxxxii. 

— was probably an Adoptionist, xiv, 
CX, Cxi. 

— his shrine at Ashtishat, cxix. 

Gregory Magistros (eleventh cent.) 
commissioned by Constantine Mono- 
machus to drive the Paulicians out 
of the Empire, 1xxi. 

— he failed to extirpate them, ibid. 

— his literary activity, 141. 

Gregory of Narek, his accusations 
of Smbat, li, lii. 

Gregory Theologus on Baptism of 
Christ, οἷν. 

Gutschmid, von, on Probus in Arme- 
nia, Ci. 


Harnack, Prof. Adolf, on Acts of 
Archelaus, civ. 

— on infant baptism, cxxi. 

—on omission from the creeds of 
Baptism of Jesus, xcvili 72. 

— on tract, De Montibus, cxxxiv. 

— on Adoptionism, exci, cxciv. 

— on Methodius, vii. 

Harq or Xdpxa, its topography, Ixix. 

— its Paulicians, cxx, 131 foll. 

Hebdomadarii in early Armenian 
Church, clx. 

Helvidius on Virgin Mary, cxxxv. 

Heterii Epistola against Elipandus, 
elxxii foll., clxxviii. 

Hierarchy absentin Paulician Church, 
Xxxvili, Ixxix, cxxiii, 105, 176. 

— its genesis, οχον. 

— denied by Nerses of Lambron, 
176 x. 3. 

— aversion to, of early Armenians,181. 

Hippolytus on early Adoptionists, 
xcii foll. 

— on Birth and Baptism of Jesus, clv. 

Holy Spirit enters catechumen 
through Baptism, xxxv, 100, 100. 
DET pees 


5.2 


196 


Holy Spirit, possession by it, in 
Shepherd of Hermas, Ixxxix. 

— in Acts of Archelaus, xcix. 

— among Spanish Adoptionists, 
clxxiil. 

— a created being, xxxv, 100. 


Iconoclasm, cxcvi; see Images. 

Iconomachi in Albania of Cau- 
casus, lvii, lviii. 

Ignatius, his creed mentioned the 
Baptism, xcviii. 

— calls the bishop Christ and God, 
CXXXii. 

Images and Pictures repudiated as 
idolatrous, xxv, xxvi, xxxvi, 86, 115, 
127, 137, 145. 

Immanence of Christ in the elect, 
xl, li foll., exxxii foll., clxxxi foll. 

— expressed by Methodius, vii 7. 

— atenet of the Spanish Adoptionists, 
clxxv foll. 

— and of the early British Church, 
clxxill. 

Infallibility of Pope inimical to 
human intelligence, lvi. 

Infant baptism rejected by Paulicians, 
xxxiv, Ixxvi, lxxxiii, 73, 74, 76, 88, 
92, 118, 126,127, 140, 142, 146,148. 

Intercession of Virgin and _ saints 
rejected by Paulicians, xxxvi, 113, 
ΤῊ 120- 

Irenaeus on infant baptism, cxxi. 

Isaac, Catholicos (twelfth cent.), an 
Armenian renegade, preserves a 
Paulician manifesto, lxxvi. 

— on non-observance in Armenia of 
orthodox feasts, clix. 

— Greek text of, 171 foll. 


Jainas of Indiaimitated by Mani, cxlv. 

James, or Jacobus, Paulician bishop 
of Harq, 131. 

Jesus Christ a creature, according to 
Eunomius, cxy. 

John’s Gospel not anti-Adoptionist, 
xciii. 

— received by Theodotus, ibid. 

— rejected by Alogi, ibid. 

John the Baptist conferred on Jesus 


INDEX 


priesthood, prophecy, and kingship, 
ΟΧΙΙ. 

John the Baptist, his feast preceded 
those of all others, clx. 

John of Damascus cited, cxvil. 

John (Ohannes or Hovhannes) the 
priest, copyist of Zhe Key of Truth, 
xxvii, lxxii. 

— his propaganda in Khnus, xlix,|xxii. 

John of Otzun, A.D. 718, on Pauli- 
cians, lvii foll., Ixxxi, Ixxxii, clii, 
152 foll. 

John of Owaiq, Catholicos, deposed, 
CXX. 


Karapet Ter-Mkherttschian regards 
Paulicians as Marcionites, xlvii, 
1xxxvi 72. 

— on name Paulician, cv. 

Karkhar, or Carchar, the See of 
Archelaus, ci. 

—wasin south-east Armenia, Viii z., cii. 

Kasché, or Kashé (?), on Araxes, 
a Paulician canton, 148. 

Kashé and Alinsoy, Paulician villages 
in Taron, 137. 

Kdshav, monastery at, infected by 
Paulicianism, ]xx, 125. 

‘Key of Truth,’ copied in Khnus by 
John the Priest, xxvii. 

— its form, xxix. 

— its style, xxx, xxxi. 

— its age, xxxi foll. 

Khanus, village of, see Khnus. 

Khelat, or Klath, on Lake Van, 
a Paulician centre, 135, 

Khnus, or Khanus, Paulician canton 
in Turkey, xxiii, xxvii, ]xix. 

Kirakosak, heretical book translated 
in Old Armenian, cxxxii 7. 

Klath; see Khelat. 

Kothér, a walled village on the 
Murad Chai, 139. 

Kountzik, an Albanian Paulician,136. 

Kunoskhora, a Paulician centre, 
where, Ixxiii. 


Lactantius, his Adoptionist leanings, 
xcvi. 

Lazar of Pharp (fifth cent.) on Arme- 
nian heresy, Ixxxvy, cviii, 180 #. 7- 


INDEX 


Lenten fast, origin of, Ixxviii. 

Leo the Great on Priscillian, xlv. 

Liber Sententiarum cited, lvi, cxliv, 
160 foll. 

Lizix, or Selix, a Paulician, xli. 

Logos, Alexandrine doctrine of, Cxxxii. 

— its incarnations, cxciii. 

— doctrine rejected, xl, 114, 147. 

Lord’s prayer, ceremony of giving to 
a Credens, cxlii. 


Macarius of Jerusalem, A.D. 325-335, 
on abuses of Armenian Church, 
CXxlii. 

— cited, cliv. 

— his epistletothe Armenians genuine, 
178 foll. 

Malilosa, feast of Cathars of Coln, 
exli. 

Mananali, the modern Karachoban 
on the Khinis Chai, not near Samo- 
sata, lxix, 139 foll. 

— birthplace of Constantine the Pauli- 
cian leader, xxiii. 

Mani, or Manes, condemned by Pauli- 
cians, xliv foll. 

— opposed by Archelaus, xcvii foll. 

—the true descendant of Marcion, 
CXXxi. 

—his commentary on Gospel trans- 
lated into Armenian, cxxxii. 

Manichean, a general term for 
heretics, cv. 

— Paulicians not Manicheans, cxxxi. 

— nor the Cathars, cxlv. 

— elect ones in Manichean Church, 
CXXxi. 

— the Armenian Manicheans, cxxxii, 
148, 157 foll., 176. 

— fasts of Manicheans, cxly. 

—excluded from Armenian rest-houses, 
clxvi. 

Manuel, Emperor, 157. 

Marcion’s Church not a mystic or 
purely spiritual one, xlvii. 

—on generation of Jesus Christ, 
clxxxvi. 

— his phrase συνταλαίπωροι explained, 
liii. 

— mentioned by Paul of Taron, 175. 


197 


Marcion, his text of Gal. vi. 17, liv. 

— not connected with Paulicians, xlvii, 
exxx foll. 

Marcus, the heretic, his prophetesses, 
clxxxiv. 

Mariolatry forbidden, 1xxxi. 

— by Tertullian and Helvidius, cxxxv ; 
see Virgin Mary. 

Maris, a Syrian, in Basil’s letters, 
cxiii. 

Marutha, Bishop of Nphkert, on Birth 
and Baptism of Jesus, clvii. 

— on eating of Paschal lamb before 
Sacrament, clviii. 

Matal, or animal sacrifice, among 
Armenians, cxxvii, clxiv, 134; see 
Sacrifice. 

Matthew Paris on Cathar Pope, cxlvii. 

Mechitar, or Mkhitar, of Airiwanq, 
A.D. 1300, cited, ]xi. 

Melitene, Theodore, Bishop of, 177. 

Melito, half an Adoptionist, xciv. 

— on Birth and Baptism of Jesus, clvii. 

Meruzanes, Bishop of Armenia, 
¢. 250 A.D., cili, cix. 

Messalians or Euchitae, lvii. 

— Paulicians so-called, evii, cviii. 

Methodius on Immanence of Christ 
in the believer, vii 72. 

Millenarists, German, in Caucasus, 
XXvll 7. 

Mkherttschian,Dr.Karapet,141,151. 

Mohammedan conception of Jesus, 
how far Adoptionist, clxxiv. 

Mommsen, Prof. Theod., on Probus, 
ci. 

Monkery condemned, xxxix, xliii, 
exxiii, 83, 84, 122, 136, 137. 

— ridiculed by Constantine Copro- 
nymus, Cxvil. 

Montague, Lady Mary, on Paulicians 
of Philippopolis, cxxxviii. 

Montanist prophecy, cxxxii, cxxxiv, 
clxxxiii foll. 

Montanists, were they in communion 
with Paulicians? clxxxv. 

— identified with them, ibid. 

Muharkin, or Nfrkert, ἰχχ. 

Mushel, the Paulician prince, lxxiv, 
126. 


198 


Muzarabic Liturgy, its Adoptionism, 
clxxi. 


Name-giving, Paulician rite of, on 
eighth day, xxxiv, 87 foll., 153. 

Wana, author of Syriac commentary 
on John’s Gospel, lxv. 

— on Smbat, ibid. 

Nectarius of Rome on Baptism of 
Christ, οἷν. 

Werses, Catholicos 
Paulicians, lwviil. 

— the lieutenant of St. Basil, cxii. 

— deposed by King Pap, exii, cxiii. 

— erected rest-houses in Armenia, 
elxvi. 

Werses of Lambron (twelfth cent.) 
on Paulician usages in Cilician 
kingdom, Ιχχχν, clxvi foll. 

— on hereditary priesthood, cxxviii. 

Wicene Creed rejected, Ixxvii. 

Nicopolis, Basil at, cxiii. 

Nouna, Georgian saint, clxxxiv. 


persecutes the 


Ordinal, Paulician, compared with 
Cathar ritual, cxliii. 

— and with ordinal of orthodox Arme- 
nians, clxxxix foll. 

Origen on absence of Churches and 
altars among early Christians, Ixxx. 

— on nature of Incarnation, clxxxii. 

Original sin, Christ without it, xxxv, 
10. 

— use of the term among Paulicians, 
exxy foll. 

— little children without it, xxxix, 118. 


Pakhr, the hill of emery, a range near 
Erzeroum, 137. 
Pap, King of Armenia, opposes Nicene 
faith, cxii. 
— resorts to bishops of Pers-Armenia 
and rejects Caesarea, cxiii. 
~ opposed monkery, clxvi. 
Paschal lamb eaten before Sacrament 
in Syria and Armenia, clviii. 
Pasen, or Basen, and Bagrevand, Arian 
bishop of (c. 330), 179. 
Passion of Jesus Christ, how regarded 
by Paulicians, clxii. 


INDEX 


Paul Meherean on the Paulicians of 
eighteenth cent., 1xxi foll. 

Paul, St., the Paulicians affiliated 
themselves to him, cxxix foll. 

—on immanence of Christ in the 
faithful, liv, exxxiii. 

Paul of Samosata, his view of Christ, 
xiii, xcv. 

— why deposed by Aurelian, xciv. 

— libelled by the orthodox, cxxxiv. 

— Paulicians called after him, cv, cvi, 
cxvii, Cxxix. 

— Spanish Adoptionists followed his 
teaching, clxxiv. 

Paul of Taron on Artemon, clvi. 

— on Manicheans, 176. 

— on purgatory, clxiv. 

— excerpts from, 174 foll. 

Pauli, Visio, when translated into 
Armenian, cxxxii 7. 

Pauliani, same as the Paulicians, xiii, 
Cv, ΟΥ]. 

— were quartodecumans, clii. 

Paulicians, origin of the name, 
cv. 

— means a follower of Paul of Samo- 
sata, cvi, 148. 

— and not of St. Paul, cxxix. 

Paulicians, Western, their geographi- 
cal distribution, Lxxiii. 

— transportation of, to Thrace by 
Copronymus, Ixxiii ; by Tzimiskes, 
civ, cxxxvii foll., cl. 

— in Syria, cxxxix. 

— in Oxford and Gascony, ibid. 

Paulicians were old believers, xlviii, 
Ixxxvi, cxix, clxiv. 

— claimed to be Catholic Church, 
Xxxili, 73, 76, 80, 86, 87, 133, 147, 
148. 

— their place in general Church 
history, Ixxxvi. 

— their fasts and feasts, clii foll., 
CXCili. 

— organic unity of their rites and 
belief, Ixxvii. 

Pers-Armenian Christianity Adop- 
tionist, ciii, civ, cxili, cxvi. 

Peter, St., his epistles read by 
Paulicians, xxxix, xliii. 


INDEX 


Peter, St., attitude of Paulicians to 
him not hostile, cxxx, 93. 

— ritual use of his name in Comso/a- 
mentum of the Cathari, cxliii, clxv 

— and in Paulician ordinal, xlix. clxy, 
107. 

— his import according to St. Sahak, 
clxiv. 

— according to Elipandus, clxx. 

Peter of Sicily, or Petrus Siculus, on 
Paulicians, vi, xl foll., cxxxvii. 

Philo on forty days’ fast of Moses, 
Ixxxvii. 

— on fasting, cxly. 

— on Incarnations, cxc, cxciil. 

Plato's Republic, analogy of, with 
Adoptionist Church, Ixxxviii. 

Pneumatic Christology defined and 
contrasted with Adoptionism, exci, 
cxclil. 
Pope of Rome 
Theodotus, xc. 
—triumphs over Paul of Samosata,xcv. 
— his usurped authority repudiated 
by Paulicians, cxxx. 

— and by Albigeois, 170. 

Presbyters in Paulician Church, i.q. 
the elect ones, xxxviii, cxxiv, 106, 
108. 

Priesthood in orthodox Armenian 
Church hereditary, cxxvii foll. 

Priscillian, no Manichean, xlyv. 

Probus, Emperor, recovers Armenia, 
ΟἹ, cll. 

Procopius on the Montanists, clxxxv. 

Prophetesses, Christian, clxxxiii foll. 

Prophets in The Shepherd of Hermas, 

Ὁ σι τς 

— among Montanists, clxxxiii foll. 

Proseuchae among early Armenians, 
clxii, clxv. 

— among Paulicians, clxvi. 

Provengal Ritual of Lyon, 160 foll. 

Publicani, name for Pauliciani, 
exxxix, cxlvil. 

Purgatory denied, xxxvi, clxiv, 121, 
122, 176. 


excommunicates 


Quadragesimal Fast after Epiphany, 
Ixxviii, lxxxiv, clxii, 


199 


Quartodecuman observance among 
Pauliani, clii. 


Raffi, modern Armenian novelist, 
Cxxix. 

Reader or Anagnostes in Paulician 
Church, xxxix, 106. 

Rebaptism of orthodox Catholics by 
Paulicians, xxiv, xli. 

Reinerius Saccho affiliates Cathar 
Churches of Europeto the Bogomiles, 
exlviii. 

Ritualism rejected, lxxix, lxxxii. 

Rulers in Paulician Church, who were 
they, cxxiv. 


Sabbath, probability that the Pauli- 
cians kept it, clxi. 

Sacraments, Paulician, three only, 
xxxlii, 76, 77, 86, 87, 119, 154- 

— orthodox sacraments denied, xlvii. 

Sacrifices of animals for sins of the 
dead condemned, xxxix, cxxviil, 
ΟἸΧΙ ΤΠ 2275 157. τὴ 5ὲ8 
Matal. 

Sahak, Catholicos (fifth cent.), his 
canons on Agapé and Eucharist, 
Ixxxiv, CXXXvi. 

— on significance of ‘ Church,’ clxiv 2. 

—on Quadragesimae of Epiphany, 
lxxxiv. 

— his list of early Armenian feasts, 
clx foll. 

— on functions of bishop, 183 7. 

Saints, their intercession denied, xxv, 
Xxxvi, xli, cxvi, 120. 

Salaberga, St., combats Adoptionism, 
clxxxi. 

Saracens, Paulicians side with them 
in crusades, CxxXix. 

Σαρακηνόφρων, epithet applied to 
Paulicians, clxxiv. 

Sargis or Sarkis Catholicos (c. 1002) 
persecutes the Paulicians, 135. 

Sarkisean, Father Basil, 125. 

Sasoun, its inhabitants in ninth cent. 
described, lxv. 

Scriptures to be given to laity, 
xxxix, xiii, 


200 


Scythian monks, A. D. 520, on original 
sin, CXXVi. 

Sebeos, the historian, cited, Ixvii, 1xx. 

—on deportation of Armenians, cxxxvii. 

Sergius the Paulician not the author 
of the λέγ, xxxii. 

— his epistles, x1, li foll. 

— his date, ]xxxvii. 

— mentioned in Matthew of Edessa, 
Ixviii. 

Severian on Birth and Baptism of 
Jesus, clvi. 

Shahapivan, Council of, in 447 
condemns the Adoptionists of 
Armenia, cvii, cviii. 

Shepherd of Hermas, an Adoptionist 
book, ix, xiv, Ixxxix foll., cxcii. 

— echoed by Archelaus, xcix. 

— on inspiration, clxxxi foll., clxxxiv. 

Simeon, Episc. Beth-Arsamensis, 
A.D. 510, on Paul of Samosata, cvi. 

Simon Magus, how regarded among 
Paulicians, cxcii, 128. 

Smbat, was he Chosrow’s Shoum, 
Ixvii. 

— the Paulician, perhaps author of 
the Key, xxxii. . 

— organizes Adoptionists of Taron as 
a distinct Church, cxvii foll. 

— called himself a Christ, li. 

— born at Zarehavan, 1xi. 

— his age and personality, lxi-lxvii. 

— his successors, Ixvii. 

— notices of, 126 foll., 142 foll. 
Smbat Bagratuni, probability that he 
was Smbat the Paulician, lxi foll. 
Socrates, Hist. on Agapé and 

Eucharist, 1xxxiii. 

Σωλῆνος, ws διά, import of, as applied 
to Virgin Mary, xlvi, clxxxvi foll. 

Sozopolis, the Church at, cxiv. 

Spain, early Christianity of, Adop- 
tionist, cxxvil, clxx foll. 

Sponsors in Baptism condemned, 
xxxviii, 88. 

Stephanus of Siuniq on Smbat 
Bagratuni, Ixiv. 

Stoic influence in early Christianity, 
xcl. 

Stranga River, upper Zab,viii 7., οἱ]. 


INDEX 


Συνέκδημοι and νωτάριοι among the 
Paulicians, cxxiv. 

Συνταλαίπωροι καὶ συμμισούμενοι, 
import of phrase, 111], 

Sun-worship, origin of modern 
Christmas, clvii. 

Synagogues and proseuchae, names 
used in early Armenian Church, 
clxii, clxv. 

Syriac, use of, in earliest Armenian 
Church, ciil. 

Syrian Catholicos, letter to, of Gre- 
gory Magistros, 143. 

— doctors on invention of the Roman 
Christmas, clvii. 


Table, only word for altar in Armenian 
Church, Ixxxii, clxy. 

Tamerlane’s invasion of Armenia, cl. 

Taron, early Christianization of, cx. 

Tchamtchean’s history of Armenia, 
lxvi. 

Telonarii, name for Publicani, cxxxix, 
exlvii. 

Tephrike, Paulician fortress, fatal 
consequences of its fall, Ixxvi. 

Tertullian opposed to child-baptism, 
cexxi foll. 

— his teaching resembled the Aey in 
regard to Baptism, cxxii foll. 

— in regard to Virgin Mary, cxxxv. 

— and to Eucharist, zbzd. 

— on the immanence of Christ in the 
faithful, cxxxiv. 

— on significance of symbolic repre- 
sentation of Jesus Christ as ἰχθύς. 
cliii. 

— de ecstast, clxxxi. 

Thelkuran, or Telguran, near Amid, 
a Paulician district in twelfth cent., 
Ixxi, 155. 

Theodora, Empress, her persecution 
of Paulicians and its fatal results, 
Ixxiv foll. 

Theodore, Bishop of Melitene, 177. 

Theodotus, Armenian bishop, in- 
sults Basil, exiii, 

Theodotus of Rome, his belief, xcii 
foll. 

— accepted fourth Gospel, xcili, 


INDEX 


Theophanes on the Montanists, 
clxxxy. 
Θεοτόκος. Term rejected by Pauli- 


cians, xl, xlii, exvii, 114. 

Thomas Artsruni (tenth cent.), his 
attack on Smbat Bagratuni ex- 
plained, 1xiii. 

Thonrak, Paulician centre, its topo- 
graphy, lix, lx, 141 foll. 

— in province of Apahunis, 135. 

Thrace settled with Paulicians, civ, 
exxxvii foll. 

Thulail, a walled town in Taron, 
Iexe 

—a centre of Paulicianism, Ixx, 141 
foll. 

Tiflis, Governors of, relations with 
Paulicians, xxiv, xxvill. 

Tixerant, a name for the Cathari, cxl. 

Toulouse; see Cathars and Albi- 
geois. 

Trinity rejected by Paulicians, xxxv, 
98. 

Turges, or Tourges, Arian bishop in 
Armenia (¢. 330), 179, 184. 

Twin, modem spelling of Dwin, 
which see. 


Unitarians, a survival of old Adop- 
tionist Church, cl. 

Unitarianism of Paulicians, xxxv, 79, 
94, 108, 119, 148. 

Unleavened loaf in Paulician Eucha- 
rist, xxxviii, xlix. 


Vahan, Catholicos, 177. 


201 


Vestments, ecclesiastical, rejected by 
Paulicians, Ixxix, clxviii. 

Virgin Mary, her cult and interces- 
sion rejected, xxiv, xxv, xxxvi, xlil, 
Cxvii, CXxxv, I13, 114, 146. 

— in Helvidius and Tertullian, cxxxv. 

— conceived through ear, cxciv. 

— her flesh not in Jesus, xlvi, cxiv, 
clxxxvi foll. 

Virgin birth, the, xcviii, clxxii foll. 

Vrveér, or Wrwér, a Paulician prince 
in Taron, 136. 


Waldenses rejected paedo-baptism, 
exlii. 

Wall, W., on infant baptism, cxxi 7. 

Wang, or rest-houses, in Armenia, 
clxvi. 

Wardawarh, or Armenian feast of 
the transfiguration, clii, clx. 

Waters blessed on Jan. 6, cliii. 

Western text of New Testament 
disseminated by the Adoptionists, 
cxcil. 

Wiszowaty, Benedict, on Unitarians 
and Anabaptists, cli. 

Wrthanés, Catholicos, sends to 
Macarius of Jerusalem, 181. 


Yousik (= Josakes, or Hesychius), 
Catholicos, subscribes to Basil’s 
letter to Western Church, exiii. 


Zarehavan, Paulician centre, lx, 144. 
Zeno’s Henoticon, 129. 
Zenob, his style, xxx, 189. 


LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED. 


Johannes Bornemann. 7212 Taufe Christi durch Johannes. 
Leipzig, 1896. 

J. Friedrich. Bericht iiber die Paulikianer, Sitzungsberichte der 
kh. ὁ. Akademie der Wissenschaften 2u Miinchen. 1896. Heft I. 

Karapet Ter-Mkhrttschian. Dze Paulikianer. Leipzig, 1893. 


A Study of the Manicheo-Paulician Heresy of the Thonraki 
(modern Armenian). By Father Basil Sarkisean. Venice, San 
Lazar Press, 1893. 


Die Armenische Kirche, von Arsak Ter Mikehan. Leipzig, 1892. 


Prof. H. Gelzer. Die Anfainge der Armenischen Kirche. 
Berichte der k. Sachs. Gesellschaft d. Wiss. 1895. 


Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur, von Karl Krumbacher 
(see especially the sketch of Byzantine history in this volume 
written by Prof. H. Gelzer). Zweite Auflage. Miinchen, 1897. 


Alex. Eritzean. Zhe Armenian Thonraketzt. In the New- 
Armenian Review Phords, ‘Tiflis, 1880. 


5, R. Maitland. Adldzgenses and Waldenses. 1832. 


— 


ν᾿ 
7 : 
᾿ ye 
{ P ἫΝ - 
OXFORD 


PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
BY HORACE HART, M.A. 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 


‘ 
¢ 


y ΗΝ 


Ἑ ΠΡΌΣ, ἢ ἣ 


et TY a 
wer P Als 
~~ a 

aie 


UC SOU 


IQUE AVA 


0700 323 9 


ha hg 
ΠΟ» 

wae Ὅς 
ite Nie 


σεν 


Sete 


= 
Be 


nee Se 


eeoees